Talk:Detransition/Archive 1

Very glad to see this here

Thank you to whomever originated the article and worked on it. It needed to be said, and it says just enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.154.4.14 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV discussion.

The thrust of this article is that detransition is widespread, and that the truth is being hidden. Doesn't seem NPOV to me. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't get that at all from the current state of the article. It's a small article that simply notes that some people detransition and why, and issues faced on the matter. If you want the article to state that detransitioning is rare, then that needs to be reliably sourced. I don't see a strong case for your Template:POV tag. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

My point was more on the 'truth being hidden' part -- but, I get your point, I'll remove the tag. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't get a "truth being hidden" feel from the article either. Thanks for removing the tag. The article does need improvement, but I don't see that tag as needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this is NPOV. First of all, the study cited is old and ignores more recent studies such as https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1326190 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261554/

Second, the phrase "gender confusion" in the article is never used scientifically. It's a term used by opponents of transgender people to imply that they are mentally ill. In this case, the term is a direct quote from Walt Heyer and should be enclosed in quotation marks to make it clear that it is a quote. --Dskoll —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Dskoll, I think you meant to state that you feel that the article is not NPOV. Either way, the source you took issue with is just one tiny piece in the "Clinician experiences" section. It is enough to tag a section as non-neutral without tagging the whole article as such. But, either way, you added counter material to the section. And you edited the "gender confusion" part in the way you suggested. So what NPOV issue is left? Keep in mind that this article is about detransitioning, not transitioning. So the focus, including the sources, should generally be on/about detransitioning. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for this topic are important, which is why the article is tagged with the medical template it's tagged with. So, regarding the sources you added and the content that was (and currently still is) in the article before your edits, the sourcing needs improvement. Read MEDRS for why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Flyer 22 Reborn Yes, I meant not NPOV. I feel that with my edits, it's closer to NPOV but still not quite there as many of the references are decidedly non-neutral (Walt Heyer is basically a one-person detransitioner industry - see https://waltheyer.com/ - and The Federalist has a very conservative and anti-transgender bias - see http://thefederalist.com/tag/transgender/ for example.) Dianne Skoll (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, their bias has been discussed at RSN before. Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Rates of suicidality following transition

Hi @A145GI15I95:! You've recently made a lot of BOLD changes to this article, including adding the sentence "A long-term study (spanning the years 1973-2003) published in the year 2011 of 324 post-transition patients in Sweden found that the rate of suicidality following sex-reassignment procedures was "considerably" higher than in a matched non-transsexual control group." It is not clear what connection this has to detransition; are you synthesizing one? It would be advisable for you not to continue re-adding it without consensus that it is relevant. -sche (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why aren't you bringing your concern to the article's Talk page? A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The article talk page that we are currently on? -sche (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, this is indeed on the Article Talk page. I was linked here from my User Talk page. And thus far, you've only been leaving me notes in change logs and on my User Talk page. The Swedish study cites suicidality as increasing following transition, and it notes regret as a related cause. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"The Swedish study cites suicidality as increasing following transition": no, it does not say that. That's false. Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: I had modified that statement to add "higher than in a matched non-transsexual control group" because the prior version before that was clearly a no-go and not supported by the source; don't have time for diffs now, but wanted to give you a heads-up. It may need further editing to be completely accurate, and in any case, this doesn't address your detransition question, but just wanted to be clear about that portion. More later, if you need it. Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

So, back to the topic of suicidality; some thoughts in response:

• As noted above, the Swedish study did not claim it increases following transition. If that invalidates whatever reason it was placed there, we need go no further in this argument.
• The word itself maybe doesn't mean what you think it means; for starters, suicidality is not suicide. It includes attempts, and ideation (thoughts) as well.
• If we do include it in the article, to what end? To establish a baseline of suidality pre- and post-transition, and then compare suicidality after detransition? I don't know that a single study has done that, and we can't combine two, for SYNTH reasons.
• It's well-known that suicide and attempts are extremely high in pre-transition individuals. If we're going to talk about transition suicidality in the article at all, then the interesting comparison, would be pre- vs. post-transition. My guess is, that that figure would drop considerably post-transition, and still be considerably higher than a control group, but 1) we'd need a source for that, and 2) how is any of this relevant to this article, which was User:-sche's point to begin with.

One concrete suggestion: suicidality is jargony; if we're going to include a passage including the concept, I think we should either replace the term by its definition, or include the term with the definition immediately following in an appositive. Mathglot (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree "suicidality" is jargon, but I've made the edit now, replacing the word with "suicidal thoughts" and linking to the relevant Wikipedia article. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Summarization of WPATH study

IMO, this change serves to imply that detransition is common ("roughly half of the 46 responding surgeons from the United States and Europe had encountered a patient who regretted transition or sought detransition treatments with them"), when the actual finding is that it is exceedingly rare (occuring in 0.3% of patients). Is there consensus for such a rewording? If not, it should be undone, to restore the stable older wording. -sche (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The statement "roughly half" is fair; it refers to (quoted from the study): "49% of respondents had never encountered a patient who regretted their gender transition or were seeking detransition care." The statistic of 0.3% as a rate of detransition in this article is misleading. The statistic actually refers to the number of patients in the survey who sought surgical detransition (and sought by patients seeing WPATH-registered surgeons only). Detransition can be sought through reverse-surgery, reverse-hormone therapy, and/or social detransition alone. Surgical detransition can also be sought by non-WPATH surgeons. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

My view is the inverse of yours: the 0.3% statistic is fair, and the 49% is highly misleading.

The "before" version mentions a specfic statistic (0.3%) that is relevant (because it deals with the prevalence of detransition, which is the subject of the article), well-defined (because it has a unique, unambiguous interpretation), and intuitive (you don't have to be a statistics guru, to draw the correct conclusion from the statistic). The "after" version, (half the responding surgeons had encountered a patient...) is irrelevant (it would be relevant if we were talking about the professional preparedness level of surgeons to deal with detransition, but this is about prevalence), not well-defined (the number could be 100% in hospital A, if the chief of surgery brings all the attendings and residents in to observe their one detransition operation that year, but 0% in hospital B, if the chief of surgery made it in despite the blizzard, but no one else did, so everyone missed the sole detransition patient that year), and counter-intuitive (non stats-savvy wiki reader: "So, roughly half the surgeons had a detransition patient, so about half of them detransition; wow!").

Imho, there can be only one reason to include the statistic about how many surgeons had seen such a patient, and that is to gauge how prepared doctors are to treat them. In a section of the article dedicated to prevalance, it has no place.

In my view, the old wording should be restored. I take the point about 0.3% being misleading if nothing is mentioned about this being strictly surgical detransition, but that has a simple solution: mention it. It's also fair to mention that when other forms of (non-surgical) detransition are included, measures of prevalence change accordingly, which is to be expected; those values can be given as well. Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the concern is moot. I've removed the Danker study per WP:MEDRS (avoid WP:Primary sources). A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WPATH and bias

An assertion was made above in passing that WPATH is biased, as if this were something that were common knowledge. I believe this was asserted in order to downgrade the Danker (2018) reference for possible use as a reliable source for estimating prevalence of detransition, but that's just a guess.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health is a multidisciplinary professional organization that is concerned with all aspects of transgender care; it holds conferences, issues papers, and so on. It is most noted for having established the Transgender Standards of Care guideline and for keeping it updated. Calling WPATH biased seems bizarre to me, as it is the foremost organization in the world doing this kind of work, and one that other organizations look to. It is the successor organization to the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, which pioneered professional standards of care in transgender health in the United States. I can't even conjure what kind of bias is being alleged, so I'm a bit of a loss how to respond. I consider it one of the most venerable, rock-solid sources for reliable, professional information about transgender health issues.

If there's something I"m missing, please enlighten. Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WPATH's evolution has been gate-opening for transition rights. Each iteration of their SOC has lessened gate-keeping requirements (such as psychological assessment to catch co-morbidities prior to hormones or surgery). WPATH has also refused to acknowledge existence of detransition in their seven versions of SOC, let alone to provide guidelines for detection and handling, despite doctors' calls for otherwise. The only WPATH study I've seen (Danker) claimed detransition rate is less than one percent, but they only considered reverse-operative detransitioners (they ignored the vast majority of detransitioners who choose no surgery, or who can't afford surgery and are denied insurance coverage). WPATH is generally viewed with suspicion in the detrans world. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have a strong point of view that WPATH is biased, but from the point of view of Wikipedia's verifiability requirements, that is merely your unsupported opinion. The key here, is recognizing the difference between a professional association and an advocacy group. WPATH is clearly the former. If there's an active "detrans world" pushing for better recognition of their point of view, that would be an example of the latter. Imho, it would be a very tough row to hoe to attempt to get WPATH declared an unreliable source. But there is a procedure for that, and you are welcome to try: you can start by raising a section at WP:RSN. For the time being, though, WPATH is cited or linked in numerous articles at Wikipedia and has been for a long time, and that makes it a community consensus, at least for the time being. Anything cited specifically to WPATH here, will be considered reliably sourced, and such references should not be removed just because you believe them to be biased. Please leave them in for now, until the community has declared it an unreliable source. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Assigned sex

An editor is changing the wording "assigned sex", which a number of other RfCs (e.g. here) have concluded is the usual language used to refer to the concept. Is there consensus for this change? -sche (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"Sex assigned at birth" originally referred to doctor's manipulating newborns' genitals without consent to appear more masculine or feminine. The usage for transgender individuals is controversial. It's even more controversial for detrans folks. I would prefer simply "born sex", but I would advocate for the more neutral (quoted from the "assigned" article's explanatory lead) "sex determined at birth". A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Stick with "assigned sex" for transgender topics. For transgender topics, that is the standard language. As for A145GI15I95's claims, anyone can look into that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Is "determined" offensive? It's used in the linked article's lead, why not use it here? Detransition is a delicate and politically charged topic. I recommend being as delicate and unbiased as possible in our language choices, please. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Sex assignment article states, "Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the determination of an infant's sex at birth." That's because that's what the topic is about. The determination obviously isn't always correct, which is what that article also addresses. The very next sentence is clear that it's usually all about genitalia. As for neutrality, read WP:Neutral for how being neutral works on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment on "Sex assigned at birth" originally referred to doctor's manipulating newborns' genitals without consent to appear more masculine or feminine.. It never meant that. It's strictly about observation, and declaration for administrative and legal purposes. In that sense, it is a performative utterance, just like, "I now pronounce you man and wife." If the birth sex assignment turns out to be wrong, legal or administrative adjustments are usually required after the fact, just like in cases of annulment or divorce. Mathglot (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me, I still don't see how "determined" is offensive. The "assigned" article uses "determined" neutrally as a synonym to explain the notion. "Sex assignment" was indeed originally a euphamism for intersex genital mutilation, before being adopted by transgender advocates. Both the intersex community and detrans community have complained about this usage, which is why I seek alternatives here. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Determined is not offensive, it's just not the best option, because it's not what reliable sources use. One could invent an endless series of non-offensive, equivalent expressions but since the literature has a standard term for this, none of the options we as editors could invent here are the best option. A lot of people have objected to "assignment" over the years, and maybe it's not most logical and they could've picked something better, but for better or worse, we're stuck with it now. The people who make up the names don't pick the terms to please us. Thank goodness for John Wheeler, otherwise we'd all still be saying, (or more likely, not saying), "gravitationally completely collapsed star". Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

All professional dictionaries define sex based on gametes, not identity politics or social psychology (Oxford, American Heritage, Merriam–Webster). My position is we should simply say "male" here, but my suggestion was we meet in the middle with "born male", "natal male", "determined male", or anything similar. "Assigned male" is politically charged (offensive to gender critics, feminists, and many detransitioners), and therefore inappropriate for a subject that questions contemporary gender theory. This article has worse problems, however, so I'll not revert this detail of the article. Thanks again for clarifying your position. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Emergent and politically controversial

The phrase "emergent and politically controversial" was added to the lead in this edit (updated here), and I'm generally fine with it, as I think this is definitely part of the story that this article should be addressing. I don't think it needs to be footnoted, because it is (or should) be summarizing material in the body, namely in the #Cultural and political impact section, where it should go into more detail and be footnoted. It remains to be seen per due weight, how much of the article should be about that, by my guess before having really analyzed the material out there, that it maybe be anywhere from a quarter to a half of the material, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I think the sentence in the lead should become the genesis of it's own, new paragraph, and I'll start the ball rolling on that; expanding as needed, per due weight as the article body expands.

Oh, also: I would use "emerging" here, not "emergent", although they seem to be synonymous. A minor point, but does anyone feel strongly about it? Mathglot (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

As a grammarian, I prefer adjectives over present participles in descriptions of nouns, especially for encyclopedic prose. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing in the Manual of Style that prefers one type of adjective over another. And as a grammarian, you'll recognize that emerging is a participial adjective, and functions perfectly well modifying nouns in that role. In addition, emerging controversy is about twenty times more common in English than the alternative. I'm not going to get into a long discussion over this because it's not a hill worth dying on, but there's no reason to prefer emergent here. My main point anyway was about the whole sentence, which should be the germ of a second lead paragraph, discussing the politically controversial nature of the topic. We don't have enough material about that in the body yet, so the lead needn't be expanded with a second paragraph just yet, but it's coming. Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Detransition is rare

The lead section formerly had this: "Detransition is rare.<ref name="Danker"/>" which was removed in this edit, with the summary: Remove irrelevant and biased statement from article lead (transition itself is rare). Imho, this sentence should definitely be in the lead, but it might need to be expanded for clarity. To address the issues raised in the edit summary point by point:

• irrelevant – a comment about prevalence in the lead seems highly relevant to me. A generalized descriptor like frequent, common, occasional, uncommon, rare is perfectly appropriate in the lead. The actual numbers and statistics can (and should) follow in the body to back up the descriptor, but aren't necessary in the lead, which is merely a summary of the body.
• biased – in what way is this biased? The Danker reference calls it "a rare outcome" in the first sentence of the article. The conclusion calls it "exceedingly rare".
• transition itself is rare – while this is true, it is based on a different population, and the "rareness" of detransition is not comparable to the "rareness" of detransition, so it is a misleading comparison to say that "both are rare". Gender transition is rare among all individuals; detransition is rare (or, exceedingly rare) among those rare people who have transitioned, so a sliver of a sliver. When discussing detransition, we are talking about very, very few individuals indeed.

The lead needs a statement about prevalence, and if this statement is too short, maybe we can agree on one which is clearer. How about:

• Among individuals who have undergone gender transition, detransition is a rare event.<ref name="Danker"/>

Or, if there is disagreement whether the statement is even true, rather than rather than state it in Wikipedia's voice, we could attribute it:

• According to Danker (2018), Detransition is an "exceedingly rare event".<ref name="Danker"/>

Imho, this is uncontroversial and a clear majority opinion among reliable sources, and thus the first alternative would be fine. I plan to restore some version of this if there is no discussion, but would prefer feedback first. Mathglot (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Detransition is believed to be rare, but its rarity is unconfirmed (studies are very few), the exact numbers vary greatly (between 10 and 0.3 percent—is one in ten rare?), and new studies are censored.

The Danker study, which states the lowest (0.3%) figure, and which makes the "exceedingly rare" claim, only considered those seeking surgical detransition (it ignored hormonal and social-only detransition), and it only considered WPATH surgeons (WPATH being a biased org, and not a popular choice among detransitioners). My opinion would be to strike any reference to Danker here entirely.

Frequency is irrelevant/unnecessary for the lead. Frequency of occurrence isn't essential to the condition/phenomenon of detransition.

Our articles for transgender and transition don't even mention rarity of occurrence, let alone not being in their leads, despite their rarities.

Low frequency (rarity) is commonly stated by anti-detrans activists, who write blog posts claiming detransition is a "myth", which is why I argue it doesn't belong here to reduce the article's bias.

As a concession, I moved the "rarity" statement to later in the article, rather than striking it entirely.

A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Both of your suggestions are good, Mathglot, though the first seems better because (as you note) rarity is referenced by many reliable sources, not just that one. I had not thought to include wording like "Among individuals who have undergone gender transition," because it seems obvious that one cannot detransition if one has not transitioned (and just a few sentences earlier, at the start of the lead, the article says as much), but it is apparently not obvious to all readers, and I suppose it's not bad to repeat it. -sche (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Studies are few and will remain few, because the total studiable population is a sliver of a sliver, we are talking about a very small number. Maybe you could elaborate on what you meant by "new studies are censored". I didn't realize that 0.3% was the lowest figure, but I believe you; if it only applies to detransition following surgical transition (or is it, "surgical detransition following surgical transition"?) then we can just be more specific. If that's the low figure, then we could give a range, like you do, and indicate why the numbers are so disparate (because of varying definitions and methodologies, afaict).

I don't know that the expression "WPATH surgeons" is proper; and "WPATH-registered surgeons" seems odd. The organization is just an association of surgeons of a particular subspecialty. For me, it would be just as odd to say, an "ASPS-registered surgeon" for someone who was a member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Any surgeon meeting their minimum requirements for entry (even med students) and who can pay the fee, can join. Given your "WPATH bias" comment later, I'm wondering if by"WPATH-registered surgeon" you were trying to confer the bias of WPATH onto the surgeons in the Danker paper? Otherwise, what is the point of listing their fee-based memberships?

Prevalance might not be "necessary" for the lead, but it's hardly inappropriate. As I said earlier, there's no need to mention specific numbers, especially if there's a wide range, but one could say "uncommon" or "infrequent" in the lead, and then get to the actual numbers somewhere in the body. Or the numbers, if you prefer. See for example, how the relatively rare condition of "Pre-eclampsia" handles it. Nothing is mentioned in the definition, or in the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, but a mention does occur further down. We could do something like this.

Transgender is an umbrella term, covering a multitude of different things, so it's a bit harder to give a meaningful figure for prevalence because of its multiplicity of meanings. That said, Transgender does reference a Williams Institute study reporting on a survey which gives a prevalence of 0.6% of U.S. adults, but it's largely self-selected and self-reported, so suffers from those aspects of non-optimal experiment design. Gender transition is more about various social aspects of transition, so Gender transition does not give figures; how would you even define what was included, or gather such statistics? An impossible, ill-defined task. Maybe the Sex reassignment surgery article should have some statistics, but the topic comprises dozens of different procedures, and I'm not sure how you'd collect the information about any of them. The articles on Appendectomy, Splenectomy, and Reduction mammoplasty, all very well-defined, common procedures, do not have statistics.

I think you can ignore anything "anti-detrans activists" say; it would have no place in this article, with the possible exception of documenting what the opinion of "anti-detrans activists" are, should that be judged relevant for inclusion. All the same, there is no "taint" on valid, reliable statistics just because a unreliable, activist, partisan source quotes them to bolster their PoV. Either the statements or statistics are reliable and can stand on their own and be used; or they aren't; just because the Flat Earth society agrees with somebody about something, doesn't make the data unusable. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks for that link to WP:OBVIOUS; I do think that editors who live and breathe this stuff (*coughs*, looks around...) can forget how opaque it can be for someone encountering the topic for the first time. Let's also remember that en-wiki attracts many people whose native language is not English. Finally, en-wiki is used by schoolchildren, and I see nothing wrong with trying to make an article, and especially the lead, as clear as it can be. It's entirely possible that a middle school student will read something about detransition who has no idea what it means and will come here to look it up, and who may also have only a hazy notion of what transition or even transgender mean. If a few extra words will help them make this article clearer to them, I think they're words well spent. This is supported by MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which says: If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible. The rest of us experts and geniuses can gloss right over that stuff and on to the meat of the article, without even slowing down. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd repeat my concern that if any one of us tried to mention rarity of occurrence in the lead for Transgender or Transitioning (transgender), we'd get quickly shouted down as perceived bigots. This proposal creates an air of asserting the "myth" of detransition (which has thankfully now evolved at least from "never happens" to "rarely happens"). Also, the Danker study is a primary source, not in keeping with WP:MEDRS. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "asserting the 'myth' of detransition": I had a look at the original version from 2017, and several, scattered versions since then, and to my knowledge this article has never made any claim about a "myth" and has always alluded to cases of people detransitioning. So I really don't know what you mean here.

I have several responses to your concern of what might happen at other articles:

• You don't have a crystal ball; you don't know what would happen at some other article.
• Other stuff happens: you might be right about what might happen on some other article, but that has no bearing on what should happen here. This article should be improved by adherence to policy. If there's something wrong with another article, go fix it.
• If anyone attacked you as a bigot, that would be a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and if there's a pattern of it, it could result in a block.
• You shouldn't be concerned anyway; if you can find appropriate reliable sources about prevalence on the other articles, you should feel free to add them. Assume good faith; if you have good sources, other editors will support you. I think you'll find it harder find them for Transgender, simply because of the fact it's an umbrella term; nevertheless, if you can find the sources, go for it. To an extent, I think that's true of the Transitioning article as well, since there's a large social component, but again, go for it if you've got the sources.

Which brings us back to this article. Irrespective of what might or should or does happen at some other article, the only thing that affects this article is whether reliable sources support an assertion of "rarity" (or infrequent, uncommon or any of the other possibilities) or doesn't. If there's a range, we can state that. For example, here are two possibilities for the Lead:

• Sources differ in their estimation of prevalence of detransition, but figures of 0.3% to 8% have been reported. This should be backed up by more detail in the Prevalence section, along with citations.

or, if you want something vaguer in the lead:

• Detransition is uncommon. Ditto on back-up.

Note that it's not necessary to add references in the lead, because they must be backed up by more detail in the body of the article, and must be referenced in the body. That said, it's not wrong to have refs in the lead either, especially if it's sonething particularly controversial; if you believe this is the case here, the claim in the lead can be footnoted as well, duplicating the refs in the body. That's my proposal, and it's policy-based on WP:V and WP:RS. Can you accept one of them, or make a counterproposal? Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I mention the "myth" of detransition, because if you check Google, most reports of detransition prior to recent years were from biased (pro-transition) sources claiming detransition "never happens" and that to suggest otherwise would be "transphobic". Thankfully the media has begun to realize that detransitioners do exist, so the narrative of anti-detrans activists has turned to "rarely happens". They then cherry-pick the few studies that exist, and they refer to Wikipedia as if it were itself a reliable source.

I want to be clear that I don't accuse any editors here of being detransphobic themselves, but the act of focusing this article on the supposed rarity of detransition could arguably be seen as detransphobic. The tone of this article would benefit by shifting away from questioning whether detransitioners exist, questioning if detransitioners' experiences matter, predicating detransition on whether or how many detransitioners seek medical help, etc.

Frequency of occurrence is unknown. The studies that exist are few, their definitions of detransition differ, and their focus isn't even to determine rates/population of detransition/detransitioners, they're only tangentially related. Therefore we can't claim that detransition is "rare", much less put it at the top of the page. It is merely believed/supposed/assumed/conjectured/presumed/considered to be rare by some (such as Dr Graham, who predicates the characterization with reasonable doubt of its foundation), while others say otherwise (such as Dr Ettner, Dr Djordjevic, and Mr Caspian).

I'm removing the addition of "detransition is rare" from the lead at this time, as its absence was the formerly "stable" state prior to this week. Please, in the spirit of avoiding edit war, do not re-add without consensus here. Thank you.

A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:V, articles are based on reliable sources, and detransition is found to be rare (or "exceedingly rare") by reliable sources. If you know of WP:RS-compliant sources that say it is not rare, please provide them so that the relative WP:WEIGHT of those sources among other RS on the issue, and hence the weight to give that view in the article, can be discussed. -sche (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"Exceedingly rare" comes from a single primary source, which has limited data and poor methodology, and which refers to surgical detransition only (the rarest form of detransition), not to detransition. Repeating this misconstruction here is irrelevant and biased, and it increasingly seems detransphobic.

Why would editors from transgender articles be so set on editing the detransition article to claim the condition is rare? Is there a conflict of interest?

I've already cited three professionals who state the phenomenon isn't rare, and one who states it seems rare due to dubious data. Excuse me, but this seem like wiki-lawyering instead of responding to points.

A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Danker study.

The Danker (WPATH surgeons) survey (https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/Fulltext/2018/08001/Abstract___A_Survey_Study_of_Surgeons__Experience.266.aspx) was removed and re-added. I advocate its re-removal.

• It's a primary source, supported only by a direct link to the publication of the survey.
• Its weight is undue.

1. Its response rate was very low, only 30%.
2. Its pool included WPATH surgeons only (whom detransitioners may distrust, and who themselves may refuse detransitioners, for both for personal or political reason).
3. Its focus was on surgical detransition only, which isn't pursued by most detransitioners—because surgery isn't always necessary, surgery isn't affordable, surgery isn't always covered by insurance/governments, individuals may have trauma from previous surgery, and surgery isn't always even a viable option (in some cases, no reversal surgery exists).

A145GI15I95 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, when you say, "Danker survey", you are talking about the one footnoted here.

• Primary: I'm not a MEDRS guru, so I don't have an opinion about whether it should be present or not, but afaik it's WP:PRIMARY and thus should not be used for assertions requiring MEDRS compliance. That doesn't mean it couldn't be used elsewhere, and I suspect it might be relevant in an expanded "Politicization" section, since I believe it has been cited by trans activists, and if secondary sources note that fact, then it could be added as additional support, although the secondary source reference might make that unnecessary.
• Undue: I think you misunderstand what WP:UNDUE means. A footnote on its own has no particular weight; the question one should ask, is whether the content containing the assertion which the footnote claims to verify, has due weight or not. So that's a separate kind of question. I'm actually not at all sure what you meant there.
• 30%: all sorts of biases may be found in survey results, and low response is just one of them. If and when we get around to using it to footnote politicized claims, it's possible to add text into a footnote referring to the response rate; it would be better if this came from some other source assessing Danker, as simply adding "very low response rate" to a footnote on our own initiative would be considered WP:OR. You could say "30%", because that is documented.
• Survey pool: You use the expression "WPATH surgeons" and then say that "detransitioners may distrust" them and make other claims about them, as if it's some sort of cabal, but it's just a professional association, that anyone can join. The survey pool was made up of all surgeons who registered for two conferences in 2016 and 2017. Anybody can go to WPATH conferences; the surgeons who attended might have been members of WPATH, or not.
• Survey focus: Much of what you say about surgery mirrors the situation for trans individuals, who likewise may, or may not, choose surgery for various reasons, including all the ones you list here. That the Danker survey focused on surgical detransition only is not some kind of black mark or bias at all; surveys can focus on all sorts of things, and usually it's good to constrain as many variables as possible, so when you get result data, you can attempt to reach a valid, statistically significant conclusion, if there is one. If the scope of the population is too broad, it may be harder to do that. Other studies may study other aspects of detransition; this one studied surgical detransition; that's most certainly a valid avenue of scientific inquiry. Any results, of course, would apply only to those seeking surgical detransition; but the paper is very clear about that.

Afaic, you can remove it from the Prevalence section (which is misnamed; that's another issue) but would rather hear from Flyer22 Reborn or other MEDRS-knowledgeable folks. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the survey conducted by Sara Danker.

I cite WP:UNDUE because this survey is small, its response rate is poor, its focus is only tangentially related, and it seems to be included only to push the "never/rarely happens" narrative (see above, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Detransition#Detransition_is_rare). Frequency/population of detrans is simply unknowable and barely relevant. Not to mention again WP:PRIMARY.

Detransitioners often feel harmed by WPATH, so are less likely to see a WPATH surgeon for surgical reversal (if they desire and can afford such procedures). WPATH surgeons often refuse detransitioners for liability. This isn't a "cabal", it's simply how human psychology and capitalism work.

Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You said,

• I cite WP:UNDUE because this survey is small, its response rate is poor,...

I can only state what I said before: I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding what WP:UNDUE is about. It is not a system for evaluating sources as "due" or "undue". It has nothing to do with that at all. Whether sources are admissible, is governed primarily by the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. Due and undue weight, is part of the WP:NPOV guideline, and specifies how much material to include about some subtopic within an article, compared to other subtopics within the same article.

If Detransitioners feel harmed by WPATH and you want to add that to the article, find a reliable source for it, and add it. Ditto claims about refusal to deal with detransitioners: if you have a source, please add it. Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Other primary OR non-medical sources

Related to the above: the sentences beginning "A 30-year Swedish study" and "A 50-year Swedish study" are also sourced to primary sources, aren't they? The paragraph about Miroslav Djordjevic is sourced entirely to news sources which, I recall from many past discussions about MEDRS, don't meet that standard. So is the paragraph which begins "Individuals who have detransitioned". If we take the most strict/conservative approach to MEDRS, the entire section may need to be removed... -sche (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The two Swedish studies were cited with primary and secondary sources (The Atlantic and Newsweek). The secondary sources were removed with claims of being too "pop-culture-y", with which I disagree.

Would a re-titling of this section help?

A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @-sche: I'm very uncertain about MEDRS standards as well. I thought that secondary sources were better, and non-medical ones like Newsweek acceptable, for sourcing opinions or quotations by someone, such as Djordjevic. I.e., "X said in an interview that 'detransitions are way up.'<ref>Newsweek.</ref>" are okay. I think they're even more okay, if confined to a section that isn't medical in nature, which is why I'm planning to expand the "Politicization" section, where activists on both sides can be quoted. At least, I think so. I plan to ask Doc James some of these questions, but rather than wear out my welcome asking him to come here ten different times, I'm kind of waiting for the article to expand and stabilize a bit, so we can bunch the questions. Wish Jytdog was around (sigh). @Flyer22 Reborn: is pretty good at this stuff though, and might weigh in. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(replying to both of you) News media about the Danker study can also be found — the issue (with citing news media for either the Swedish or the Danker studies) is that news media are generally not suitable for citing medical claims, AFAIK. This isn't intuitive to everyone, but the archives of Talk:MEDRS are pretty consistent about it, in my experience, and I can understand why — non-medical/scientific media do tend to sensationalize and misunderstand or misrepresent things. It doesn't matter what the section is titled, or even what article it's in, the guideline covers all "medical content in any Wikipedia article", emphasis in the original. This can indeed mean a dearth of content :/ for better or worse. Djordjevic asserting a "taboo" is probably "non-medical" content that news sources could be used to cite. Djordjevic asserting an increase in surgeries seems borderline (also because it's just one person giving an anecdote, not a robust study). We should probably post a neutral request on WT:MEDRS for some more people to weigh in on everything in this article. -sche (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mathglot, yeah, it might take hours or a day before I weigh in on a matter here or elsewhere on Wikipedia because I'm catching up on my watchlist and/or am simultaneously busy with matters off Wikipedia, or am taking a break from Wikipedia, but there's no need to ping me to this talk page. Something like "The two Swedish studies" are single study matters that we should try to avoid per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It's true that, per WP:MEDDATE, if a topic is not getting many reviews, it may need to use more primary sources than other topics, but we should still take care not to unnecessarily use primary sources. As for popular culture or other media sources reporting on medical matters, the WP:MEDPOP section of WP:MEDRS states, "News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources. A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |laysummary= parameter of {{cite journal}}." Similarly, WP:BREAKING states that "early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors." If it's just the opinion of a doctor or similar, WP:Due weight needs to be considered and WP:In-text attribution should definitely be used; also, for this article, such content is likely best placed in the "Background and terminology" section or the "Cultural and political impact" section. Otherwise, generally avoid including the personal opinions of any one person. If you look at our medical articles, they are usually summarizing the literature, not including quotes from so and so (unless it's an authoritative organization like the World Health Organization or the material is in the "History" section or "Society and culture" section). I miss Jytdog as well. He would cut a significant portion of the material in the current version of this article, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer! I'm going to mull over everything you've said here, follow all the links, and try to ramp up my MEDRS game to Adanced Beginner, and then maybe take another look at this article in the light of what I've learned. In the meantime, I'll continue with non-MED guidelines I understand better, and try to keep things ship-shape until then. I understand from what you're saying that much of the sources included or formerly included here might simply not cut it, and that's just the way it goes for recent phenomena with not much research and even less retrospective or other secondary, summary- or survey-type sources that are MED qualified. I think that leaves a topic like this, which is smack on one of the newest battlefields of the culture wars, an open target for sniping by people on all sides.

One thing that might be helpful to me, is if you happen to know of a couple of articles you could link to here, that are topics on fairly recent phenomena thus subject to WP:MEDDATE or WP:BREAKING, and even better if they are controversial, that you believe are MED standard-compliant in their current state, I'd love to take a look at them and their Talk pages, to see how editors there dealt with a similar situation to the one we have here, to see what I can learn from them. Thanks again for popping in! Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What WPATH didn't say

In these edits A145GI15I95 added the following:

"WPATH's Standards of Care offer no mention of detransition."

followed by a reference to WPATH's SOC. I find that an odd sort of use of a primary source, to document what it doesn't say. One might request, with the same sort of negative, evidence of absence logic, a page number so we know "what page doesn't have it." The edit summary for the first edit said in part: Add WPATH denial of detransition. But not everything absent in the SOC is "denied" by SOC, it's maybe just not included yet, or was never even considered. More worrisome was t

More to the point: we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, decide which concepts that are not mentioned by an existing document, speech, book, article, or other records should be included in a Wikipedia article as a notable "failure to mention" by such-and-such a document. That would be original research, which is prohibited. One could, of course, include such a "missing mention" assertion if it referenced a secondary source which specfically pointed out such a lacuna. Until that happens, we cannot include this "no-mention" sentence, so I've removed it. Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, my initial inclination was to think that, if anything, we should in fact add "WPATH does not mention {{PAGENAME}}" to more pages — [[Jaguars]]! [[Hawking radiation]]! [[Sarcasm]]! ;) — but you make good points. -sche (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WPATH has ignored detransition in its seven versions of SOC. That's worth mentioning (despite the sarcasm from another editor above), as it's a common complaint among patients and doctors, though I haven't looked for a secondary source on that.

The statement you quote (and which I see now has been removed) was originally also sourced to the Danker survey, but that was removed due to it also being a primary source. Yet I see now the Danker survey has been re-added, despite it being a primary source.

A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Um, you were the one that re-added it, in this edit, weren't you? Except now, you are using Danker to support a statement that "a former WPATH president and a majority of WPATH surgeons have expressed desire for detransition guidelines to be included." However, I read the Danker paper, and I don't see that it says that at all, so I've tagged this statement, {{failed verification}}, which basically means, "this reference does not support the assertion(s) it claims to support." You added a second source, Coleman-2017, which is a 30-slide powerpoint presentation which doesn't support the assertions either, and I've tagged that one as well. The word "detransition" appears in slide 29 as a bullet point by itself, and it the only slide in which the word appears at all.

You say, again, that WPATH "ignores detransition", but it's already been pointed out to you, that you need a reliable source to support that, and you haven't provided one. You found -sche's comments about Jaguars, and so on sarcastic, but you see the serious point behind it, don't you? Your claim about what a source does not say is your observation; by WP:NOR we cannot include your observations in an article on Wikipedia.

Do you not see some irony in the fact that you have argued vigorously and repeatedly to ensure that the term "extremely rare" or "rare" describing detransition not be included in the lead, removing the both the term and the source that supports it (diff, diff) while you later add an unsupported statement about WPATH and detransition to another section of the article, using the same source (diff) even though your assertion is not supported by that source? You have it exactly backward: Danker-2018 does support the term "rare" (quote:"extremely rare"); it does not support your claims about WPATH regarding detransition. Mathglot (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This paragraph makes assertions that are not supported by solid evidence and should be immediately removed.We can not and not assume stuff that is not there ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not re-add the Danker survey. It was re-added by user "-sche" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detransition&diff=prev&oldid=881138930). I added its citation to another statement in the diff you cite after that. Per the top of this page, please be polite (don't start with flippant "um, you were the one"). The Danker study says "88% of respondents [WPATH surgeons] feel that WPATH SOC 8 should include a chapter on detransition". The Coleman presentation on the upcoming WPATH SOC lists detransition among his "miscellaneous suggestions" for inclusion. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Section "Outcomes"

Section #Outcomes doesn't currently (as of rev 881053814) have material appropriate to a section by that name.

Per MOS:SECTIONS, section headings don't redundantly refer back to the subject of the article, and for the most part in the article, the content of most named sections all adhere to that just fine, except for section "Outcomes". For example: as one would expect, section "Prevalence and causes" means, "Prevalence and causes of detransition", and section "Cultural and political impact" means "Cultural and political impact of detransition", and for the most part, the content of those sections reflect those headings. So far, so good.

However, "Outcomes" is problematic. That section is intended for "Outcomes of detransition", but currently, the content is really more about "Outcomes of transition" or "Regrets after transition" or something like that. I think it's fine to have the stories or content that's in there currently, but not under the heading "Outcomes". Most of the material currently in that section could be moved into a new H3 subsection under "Causes", or perhaps, as a new H2 section named "Individual accounts".

There should still be an H2 "Outcomes" section in the article for sure, but we need to find completely different content for it, which addresses the question: "What are the outcomes of detransition?" and place that new content in this section. Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added a new header, "#Individual accounts" which better fits the content that is already there. "Outcomes" is an empty section for the moment, but needs real outcomes. Mathglot (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Why should there be an "Outcomes" section ("for sure"?). Shouldn't we just remove this now empty header? No obvious indication on tag's template for inclusion of tag here. Thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we shouldn't have "Empty sections" in articles for very long; it's mostly a placeholder for forthcoming content, and a kind of invitation to others to add material, too. If you look at the doc page, you'll see that it places the article in Category:Articles to be expanded. But I don't know exactly when I'll get to it, and if you feel like deleting it, go ahead. I can just add it back when there's content available for it. As far as why the "for sure", that's because it would be silly to have an entire article about the subject, and then say nothing at all about what happens after Detransition. Outcomes, in other words. Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not silly. You make it sound so simple. Detransition is still coming out. No pun intended. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If detransition is the treatment, what is the complaint?

If detransition is a reversal of transition, does that imply that there is a parallelism in causes and treatments with gender transition? Put another way: is there a syllogism such that we can fill in this blank?

Gender transition is to Gender dysphoria, as Detransition is to Name the condition

Is it just Gender dysphoria again, but a dysphoria with respect to the transitioned gender rather than the birth gender? Or something else?

Detransition is a newer subject than gender transition, so it may be that incompleteness in the article simply reflects something that hasn't been addressed in reliable sources yet. Some disorganization and lack of clarity in the article at the outset is probably to be expected. However the goal should be to move in the direction of resolving it, following (not leading) the sources that are available.

This came up, when I was considering adding sections on "Signs and symptoms", and "Classification" or "Diagnosis" to this article, as one might find in other med-related articles on conditions. But upon reflection, I realized these sections would be inappropriate in this article (at least, as long as it has the current title) for the same reason you wouldn't have those sections at Sex reassignment therapy or Appendectomy; namely they are treatments, and the proposed sections are not directly relevant for treatments, but rather for a disorder or condition of some sort.

Since some people are undergoing detransition, which in this context can be viewed as a course of treatment to relieve or improve an undesirable condition, then what is the condition that one is seeking to relieve, how is this condition identified and by whom, and who decides or confirms that a given patient or subject has it, would or might benefit from detransition, and what are the criteria to do so? I could be wrong, but I suspect that the situation is very fluid and that these questions may not have well-defined answers right now. Imho, as the field and the article mature, these are the questions we should be considering and attempting to seek answers to in the literature. Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please remember detransition is not just medical; it is also/instead personal, social, legal, and/or political. It is therefore not merely or always a treatment. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course; and naturally all of those aspects should be dealt with, to the extent we can find sources about them. What I was trying to address here, is what I see as a large, "missing section" involving the treatment aspect of it, as in, what actually happens? I mean, you can read the whole article in its current state, and not know if people are talking about plastic reconstructive surgery, HRT, breast or chest reconstruction, genital reconstruction, or what exactly. And I realize that for some, no surgical intervention is involved whatever; the point is, the whole narrative is missing; who undergoes what kind of procedure, whether socal, surgical, pharmacological, psychological, stylistic/vestimental, or legal/administrative, and under what kind of professional assistance or supervision, if any. Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The complaint, pretty much, has to be transition regret, doesn't it? In a way, that seems to be the elephant in the room in this article. I wonder if the whole article should be reentitled, Transition regret and detransition. It seems to me, it's either that, or else create a new article called Transition regret and leave this article title as is. I think it would be okay to combine the two concepts in one article for now, until it gets larger and more mature. Ultimately, it should be two, though, roughly paralleling Gender dysphoria, and Gender transition. What do others think? Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Trans regret is often related to detransition, it commonly occurs beforehand, but it's not required. For some, it's an evolution of identity. We wouldn't re-title our article "transgender" to be "gender identity disorder [or gender dysphoria] and transgenderism". This suggestion appears to be another attempt to pathologize detransition, to make it appear to be a disorder/disease. If you insist on seeking a "cause", many argue it's the misguidance and malpractice of gender clinics/doctors, activists, and legislators. Detransition is bigger than some "treatment". It's a phenomenon. Some of the section headings and editors' statements on this talk page are frankly detransphobic and offensive. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Please assume good faith in what other editors contribute to the article, and what they discuss here. Your bolded statement is the very antithesis of WP:AGF: nobody is pathologizing anything here, and the word "causes", for goodness' sake, is not restricted to pathology, but to just about everything involving cause and effect: you can look up history articles about many topics, and find a discussion about what were the causes of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the causes of World War II, the causes of the spread of agriculture, the causes of the Little Ice Age, and so on. Everything has a cause, even if we don't know what it is (see Big Bang).

Regarding your comment, We wouldn't re-title our article "transgender" to be "gender identity disorder [or gender dysphoria] and transgenderism", no, at this point we wouldn't, but that's mostly because they are mature articles that have been around for sixteen years and thousands of edits. If you look at some early versions of them however, e.g., Transgender (2002), you'll see that in fact, it did cover both of those topics, and also included transsexual, transvestite and drag, for good measure. This Detransition article is just starting out, just like those were, back then, and until the article expands a certain amount, to the point where it needs to be split, it's pretty common for two or more related topics to be included in one article, in early versions.

Your second bolded phrase, actually points out something I was going to say in a new section, but since you bring it up here, might as well respond here: the WP:LEAD, and in particular the first sentence are inadequate, in my opinion. After reading just the definition, I don't think most people could give any kind of explanation of what detransition actually is, other than parroting the words that are there already. But what does "reversal of gender transition" actually mean? From reading that sentence, we don't know. One could easily assume it's maybe a treatment (whether it is in reality or not; that's the point: it doesn't say, and let's you imagine stuff); we don't say that it is a treatment, and we don't say that it isn't. Here, you say it's a "phenomenon", so maybe we're heading towards something better than what the first sentence says now, but "phenomenon" by itself, is still kind of vague. When I get to the end of the first sentence of an article, I want to have enough of an idea what it is, to be able to restate it in my own words, even if I'm unable to go into any detail about it, until I read further.

Regarding offensive section headers, I don't think anyone here is intending to cause offense; I can only speak for myself, but I created numerous sections here on the Talk page, and that was certainly not my intention. When I write a section header, I try to make it clear what the intended topic of the discussion is, and distinguish it from other discussions. Please make a list below (or in a new section) of the section headings on this Talk page that you find phobic or offensive, and for each, give an explanation why. If you can do that dispassionately, informatively, while maintaining good faith and neutral tone, that might help me (and others?) understand your PoV, and also aid this and other discussions. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, I think the issue might be you are trying to fit a certain mold to this article that isn't supported by RS. I am not familiar with sources talking about signs, symptoms or etc with regards to detransition or that talk about detransition primarily as a course of treatment. This is a contentious topic, we should take care to base our discussions on current RS and not speculate as to what we believe it will say in the future. Second, transition regret and detransition don't necessarily always co-occur. People may detransition for reasons other than regret and people may have regrets but have no interest in detransition. As is, this article and the RS it cites seem primarily about detransition so I would not be in favor of renaming the article in its current state. Rab V (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You misread what I said, I believe. If you reread it, I said that a section of signs and symptoms "would be inappropriate in this article". You can't have signs or symptoms on something that isn't a condition, and detransition is not a condition. Mathglot (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I saw you came to the conclusion symptoms and some other terms would be inappropriate since detransition is not a condition. My argument is the more relevant reason it is inappropriate is RS don't support it. You went on to argue for seeing transition as a course of treatment which is also something I don't know that RS supports currently. If I'm wrong or misunderstanding, sorry for my mistake. Rab V (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Coleman statement

Eli Coleman—PhD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Minnesota, director of program in human sexuality, chair in sexual health, former president of WPATH, and longtime chair of WPATH's SOC revision team—presented in 2017 a lecture at the annual "Opportunity Conference" (an LGBT healthcare symposium in St Paul), in which he included detransition among his list of topics he's working to include in the currently discussed and upcoming eighth edition of the SOC. This citation has been twice tagged as "failed verification". Is this a technical case of not completing the citation tags properly, of not wording the article content to reflect the source properly, or is the source in question, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The source. He may have said actually said that, but this source is a slide presentation, and looking at the bullet item, which in this case consists of just a single word on a line by itself, it's hard to know exactly what he meant. I think your analysis is probably right, and I think he probably did mean that, but it seems like extrapolating to use that as source to say he did mean that. Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

His presentation was about his work in the next (eighth) version of SOC as the chair of SOC revisions. The cited section of his talk was his "miscellaneous suggestions" for this next version, and among these he listed detransition. I don't see how the source might otherwise be reasonably interpreted. Should his talk be cited instead of his slideshow? I've reworded the summation in the article now, hopefully to help. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have his actual words from the talk, then absolutely. Is it audio? There's a guideline someplace that explains how to link to audio, including the timestamp and transcription somewhere; if you can't find it, I probably can locate it. Mathglot (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have an audio recording. If you've means to find one, that would be appreciated. Again, I don't see how this could be reasonably interpreted differently: the WPATH chair of SOC revisions gave a talk on upcoming SOC changes, and he included detransition among his miscellaneous suggestions. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Detransition is not rare.

Citations show little to no research has been done on how frequent detransition is, and that existing research is tangential and of debatable quality. Surgical detransition-related procedures are "rare" (0–5%). Psychological/social/legal/hormonal detransition is "not uncommon" (55–95%). There is no consensus in the scientific community regarding detransition's overall frequency. Please stop adding the claim that transition is "rare", especially to the lead paragraph. The fixation on painting the detrans phenomenon and community as "rare" (or until just recently throughout the world's media as "a myth" that "never happens") is unfounded and detransphobic. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References for Detransition is not rare     ( Click [show] to enable clickable references above )
References

Of Course it is very rare. How many cases of detransition are there against the numbers people who have transitioned and who do not to go back? The evidence shows that the numbers who detransition is a very small number compared to the overall numbers of trans folks, considering we know that the numbers who had surgeries in the USA alone last year were 3,256 alone, plus the larger numbers of trans folks transition globally including India, Thailand and Europe.

And Where does Psychological/social/legal/hormonal detransition is "not uncommon" (55–95%) figure come from? 55-95% of what or who? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not claiming detransition is common. My point is we can't claim it to be rare. I've added citations to my statements above. Again, there's evidence showing rareness and evidence showing commonness, evidence varies in definitions and focus, evidence on the whole is lacking, attempts to gather new evidence are politically blocked, and professionals admit there's no consensus. To claim rareness in this article, especially in the lead, is inappropriate and offensive. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: Consolidated refs closer to their appearance with {{Reflist-talk}} and collapsed. Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Individuals who are transgender are rare. (Best estimate: 0.6%, by Williams Institute; reference upon request.) Not all transgender individuals undergo transition; those who do are some unknown fraction, larger or smaller, of transgender people. People who detransition are some fraction of people who transition. All indications are, that that fraction is small to very small. We do need sources to substantiate that, and so far data seems hard to come by, but as time goes on the situation will no doubt crystallize.

There's another problem with this that stems from a completely different issue here, which is the ambiguity of a statement like, "detransition is rare", or, conversely, "detransition is not rare". Basically, "rare with respect to what?" The ambiguity arises because it's talking about a subset (S2) of a subset (S1) of a population (P), and you don't know if "rare" means "S2 is rare in S1", or "S2 is rare in P". You see this come up a lot when talking about studies with classes expressed in percentages, each broken down into hierarchical subgroups, also expressed in percentages. Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead section (opening paragraph)

In a recent change, this sentence (the second of two) was removed from the article's lead: Detransition is an emerging and politically controversial phenomenon.

The stated reason was: This sentence appears to be fluff. Yes its a recent phenomenon, as medical science has advanced in sex reassignment surgery ~ so a relatively very small number of people have regretted their decisions , but the cases are rare (55–95% of what exactly, 7 out of how many etc etc etc) and connected to no actual notable political controversy.)

Oxford defines "fluff" as "writing perceived as trivial or superficial". I disagree with that characterization. Sources for this article note that:

• Detransition is a newly recognized phenomenon;
• Detransition is lacking in a sufficient amount of direct, formal study;
• Existing studies differ in terms and conclusions;
• New attempts to study the topic are perceived factionally with concern for professional reputations against special-interest groups;
• Detransitioners feel ignored, shamed, and used.

These sentiments are cited and outlined in the article's content, and they were meant to be summarized in the lead's second sentence by the words "emerging" and "politically controversial".

The change log's note also draws focus to surgical detransition. Medical status (hormones and surgery) isn't a defining factor of gender transition, nor is it of detransition. Most transitioners and most detransitioners don't get surgery, whether due to personal choices or access.

MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH advises the lead to "identify the topic with a neutral point of view" (as is done with the first sentence of this article) and to "establish the context in which the topic is being considered" (as was done or attempted in the second, removed sentence).

I'm not tied to the wording of the removed sentence, but I disagree with its removal. It offers a minimum of neutral, supported context. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The removed sentence was not exactly neutral, to say something was politically controversial when in fact it has not yet reached any level of what might be described as a notable political controversy, is not neutral. Also its not emerging ... long before the word 'detransition' existed and the recent increase in the numbers transitioning the has always been a unknown number who have decided to return to their originally assigned gender identity, as long as it has been safe and possible to express gender variance. Considering its neither emerging nor politically controversial the sentence did seem unwarrented. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

1) Oxford defines "controversial" as "likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement", and "politically" as "in a way that relates to the political ideas or beliefs of a person or group". Detransition is indeed controversial, and for political reasons. How else would we describe this pattern?

* Interviews of detransitioners in mainstream and alternative media are accused of bias differing factions.

* Interpretations of existing studies are similarly called into question.

* Gender psychologist James Caspian was prevented from continuing his study of detransition due to an anticipated social-media backlash against his university.

* Gender psychologist Kenneth Zucker was fired from his high-ranking position for speaking in favor of detransition.

* Other professionals fear to discuss the topic for its effect on their reputations.

* Detransitioners fear to "come out" publicly for their experiences of harassment.

2) Oxford defines "emerging" as "becoming apparent". Detransition has indeed, and only in the last few years, begun to be noticed by healthcare professionals and the media. How else should we describe this pattern?

* Google Trends shows barely any mention prior to a decade ago, and a notable increase less than three years ago.

* Numerous sources for this article note that the number of persons who pursue detransition is increasing.

* Multiple sources report increased interest from healthcare professionals.

* Detransitioners have just in recent years begun tweeting, blogging, vlogging, and forming support groups.

These two points (controversy and newness) I see as best summarizing the five bulletpoints in my first post under this section of talk. Is there a better way to summarize this context? A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but when you point to numerous or multiple sources, does this take into account that 21 references used in this article are from just 7 sources, but are multiplied by using different quotes in those citations. I am not sure if evidence for something that yes certainly does exists is being a little bit exaggerated. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've not counted the sources (no minimum is specified in the docs). Sources are finite because the topic is emerging (newly/increasingly recognized by media and professionals) and politically controversial (subject to disagreement due to differing policy-related beliefs). A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

A145GI15I95 and others, detransitioning is a medical topic. Because of this, the article should be sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, except for society and culture/history matters. An aspect of WP:MEDRS means avoiding WP:Primary sources. That is why this edit by -sche, which included an edit summary that stated "this is sourced to a primary source," is a good edit. A145GI15I95, I notice that you also need to stop WP:Edit warring, which is policy. See WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, please don't call out one party solely. I don't object to your changes cited above. Thank you for explaining further the reasoning for the lead tag. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It indeed takes two. But you are not the experienced editor. When an editor, especially an experienced editor, reverts you with a clear explanation about why are wrong, do not edit war. At first glance, it looked like you were also edit warring with Mathglot. So I focused on you. When it's one editor edit warring with two, that one editor will usually be the one who receives the WP:Block, especially if they are the newbie or appear to be a newbie. The article might also, or alternatively, be WP:Page protected. I also saw you edit warring here. So to summarize, you came across as the disruptive editor to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

On the other linked page (Genderism), I was accused of changing a link, when I was only removing a repeated word. I asked for conversation, and I was ignored. I've received a poor first impression of -sche, to be engaged in edit wars and refusal to dialog in one day. I'm requesting good faith. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the edit history of Genderism (disambiguation) can plainly see you did remove the link to Genderism, which is the main article the disambiguation page formerly linked to, but which you insisted should be replaced with a link to only Gender binary, which is currently a separate article, though you have proposed merging them. -sche (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your stepping in, Flyer. I do share blame here, as I should have moved to the talk page after the first revert and solicited more input, instead of participating in the back-and-forth. There's no rush, and I am confident that through discussion here, we should be able to reach consensus on how to change the article, and failing that the stable version can always be restored.
As to MEDRS... it is a double-edged sword and can cut out some useful content as well as bad content—as I think you have noted before on other articles, Flyer—but the guideline exists for an important reason, and yes, should be followed.
-sche (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote in the changelog, "Remove unneeded repetition of disambig title. Also: Disagree with logic of previous edit, would prefer discussion on Talk page, but willing to accept link to either of two duplicate articles." It seems there's greater interest in being right than in having good faith. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(This is clear to anyone who looks at the edit history, but) diff from before your first edit to that page, where the first link is to [[Genderism]], vs diff from your (latest) edit, where the body text (as opposed to the RM tag which would be removed when the RM is closed) no longer links to [[Genderism]], even though that article is the obvious main topic for a disambiguation page titled [[Genderism (disambiguation)]] to contain a link to. QED. -sche (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

We are exceedingly off-topic here. I attempted to discuss your revisions. I surrendered and attempted merely to remove a repeated word. Every click I attempted was interrupted by your immediately unclick. What is your purpose please in continuing this tangent? I repeat, please show good faith. A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

To bring this section back to topic, if you mean detransition involves medical topics, I agree. Thanks for the meta link. A145GI15I95 (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources have now been removed, except for those with accompanying secondary sources. Further secondary sources have also been added. Would this qualify for removal of the medref tag, or what more specifically would be desired, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: More on sourcing, such as WP:MEDPOP, is stated in the #Other primary OR non-medical sources section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I've found a literature review of desistance studies in a journal which I believe is a secondary source that complies with WP:MEDRS.[1] I'm putting forward this review as a reliable source on childhood desistance studies and criticism thereof. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 01:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

The current state of the article does not meet WP:NPOV. Hundreds of edits have been made in the last month by one editor who has made few or no other edits outside this topic that seem to argue that "detransitioner" is a marginalized gender identity along the lines of transgender or non-binary. The biggest sins: appending half a dozen citations each to the statements "0 to 95%" of transgender people detransition and "The number of detransitioners is unknown but growing" bias the article towards the idea that detransition is a common occurrence. Second, Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal are not reliable sources on transgender issues, and no number of references to opinion articles, tumblr blogs, and individual accounts can make up for inconclusive results from independent studies. In numerous places, the article also conflates negative emotions related to being discriminated against as transgender with "trans regret." This article either needs a complete rewrite or a reversion to the version from the beginning of last month with the addition of some of the research and commentary from this article. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 20:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm no sock (strange way to make acquaintance).

Detransitioners (no need for scare quotes) have called for help from LGBT/trans advocates and professionals, and have been ignored for political reasons. In light of this disenfranchisement, detrans folk have blogged, vlogged, and formed discussion groups online and in-person to support themselves. This is only recently being reported by mainstream news. Detransitioners are definitively a "marginalized" group.

Citations and quotations are provided from reliable sources to back all claims. No content from Tumblr is linked here (Straw man).

Detransition is not a "transgender issue". It is debated (to no consensus yet) among detransitioners and professionals whether detrans folk are still trans, and/or whether detrans were ever trans. It is found that most detransitioners are homosexual or bi, while many are hetero. Calling detransition a trans issue is like calling trans a gay issue. They're related but different.

I don't see where transphobia is conflated with regret. I've attempted to summarize and cite source material as accurately and fairly as possible. Thanks.

A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi A145GI15I95, I am in no way accusing you of being a sock. I simply noted to others viewing this talk page that the majority of your contributions to this wiki are edits on this article, and as such you may have strong feelings on the topic. I came on a little clinically, and I apologize for that. Ultimately, the issue here is a matter of too much, too soon. As you've noted, there is no rush to complete Wikipedia. Later, when there are firm, verifiable, scientific studies and a significant number of people who identify as "detransitioners," then this article can be expanded. Until then, you're moving in a little fast. I can empathize with your urge to bring justice to a group you feel have been ignored. However, just because you care for these people doesn't mean that their internal struggle is notable to a significant degree. There are many small but growing social groups that do not have Wikipedia articles. This is not to minimize their experiences, but Wikipedia has a standard of notability for social groups.

I am gay and am close to many queer and trans people of all sorts. I am well aware of intersectionality between transgender and LGB experiences. Some transgender people are gay and some are straight, just as some detransitioners are gay and some straight. However, detransition by its very nature is intrinsically linked to transition. Saying they're unrelated is just not accurate.

This brings me to my next point. The reason that this page pinged my NPOV-senses was because the sources it draws from (and glosses over) take a particular stance. This article mentions "anti-detrans" activists as an oppositional force to detransitioners, but none are directly quoted, as opposed to an entire section of individual accounts of specific people who have detransitioned. The inclusion of these accounts and not others leads the reader to draw certain conclusions. The "expert" cited in the Australian 60 Minutes section says this about having a potentially transgender child: "The good news is statistically, they’re going to grow out of it. Don’t mess them up." There are no accounts from people who ceased transition treatment temporarily or because of transphobic societal pressures, as in this article published in series with the oft-cited Jesse Singal article; only those who were pressured by others to transition and later realized they weren't trans. There is also no discussion of people who go through short or partial transitions by choice or because they were satisfied with the results,[2] only those who felt regret with their bodies. You have stated in the article and this talk page that people oppose detransition for political reasons. What political reasons? Editors should take care to not hold LGBT people/activists as a whole as strawmen villains. (Especially re: ignoring and disenfranchising a group of people asking for help. That's a strong accusation.) These are important things to consider in writing a balanced and fair article.

I'd like to give you time to take this into account, but I plan to move in and edit this article to fit a better standard of neutrality using these and other concerns other users have brought up on this page. (I'm also going to have another pass at neatening up the references using the advice given by our good friends from WP:Citing sources.) Please assume good faith before reverting these future edits. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying you don't wish to infer sockness. I'm accustomed to a more professional version control UI. I edit here in spurts; if I could squash commits at the end of a run, I would. Otherwise, I apologize if this presents a wall of commits; most are small. I could link to contribution histories of other editors here that show actual bias. I came here seeing an ask for more sources; I've since provided many. I'm unsure how to respond to concern for "too much, too soon…a little fast" with complaint for why haven't this and that and another item yet been added.

I appreciate that some of us might know a hundred detrans folk, and some of us might not be within a hundred miles of one. Please remember not all detrans folk are "gay…queer and trans", queer cultures vary greatly by geography and generation, and knowing or being members of one group isn't equivalent to knowing or being members of a related group.

And I didn't say trans and detrans are "unrelated", I said exactly the opposite. I said detrans isn't a trans issue, because detrans isn't a kind of trans. This article never once mentions the word "anti-detrans". I don't know why you write "expert" in quotes (scare quotes?), as neither I nor the article nor the source use that word. If you mean John Whitehall, he's the chair of pediatrics at the University of Western Sydney, which would be an expert in children's healthcare.

You ask why detransition is "politically" opposed. The article quotes Caspian's censorship for political correctness, and the citations quote the University's concern for social media backlash. It mentions the competing interests of rad fems and Christian conservative. I could look again at summarizing these and other positions further. But it's challenging to please each editor (again, too much or not enough?), and we're all volunteers.

You express concern that media haven't given enough attention to persons who detransition for transphobia. I don't believe it's our place to re-write what the media covers. And most persons simply don't detransition for transphobia, but more often for the reasons summed in this article (dissatisfaction with transition or evolved perspectives).

I'd never heard of the Kanner/Atlantic article you link. Likely because the Singal/Atlantic article gained far more attention (its Google search results return two and half times as many, 2,440 versus 971). I'll look at whatever you suggest, but I'm wary of seeking sources to fit a perspective (cart before horse).

I want to trust your intentions, but I'm wary. You write of neutrality, but you began with denial of the detrans community's existence. Your two logs above appear to show expectations for a specific narrative, and your hyperbole doesn't help. I've sought to contribute fairly from evidence, and to avoid pitting trans against detrans in the article. Please don't turn this article toward another "detransition never happens, detransitioners don't exist, detrans lives don't matter" hit piece. There's nothing wrong with detransition. Thank you.

A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions re citation practice

Following a question from @Mooeena at WT:Citing sources#Duplicate sources with quotes regarding some aspects of citation I have recommended an approach that you all might find more convenient. Key points: (a) each source has exactly one full citation; (b) list the source full citations in a dedicated section; (c) use short-cites, implemented by means of {{harv}} templates that "automagically" link to the full citations, for in-line citations.

Here I would like to offer some additional suggestions. Note that including a full citation with all of its bibliographic details in the wikitext makes the text harder to read; do consider collecting them into a dedicated section, such as "Sources". Also: vertical format makes it much easier to read and check the full citations, and likewise for spaces preceding each vertical bar. And while it is fairly small thing, I find that putting the url at the end of the template (not the start!) makes the whole template more readable.

The use of the |author= parameter for "first and last names" (such as "|author=Herzog, Katie" and "|author=Weale, Sally"} isn't a good idea, and really should be split into "first=" and "last=".

I see several instances of what appear to be journal articles cited with {cite web}. A full citation should be to the journal, not to the website where a copy of the article is found. Use of {{cite journal}}, or {{citation}} with |journal=, is preferable. Similarly, The Atlantic is a magazine, and should be cited as such, not merely as a publisher.

More points might be considered but, well, it's hard to read horizontally formated full citations in the wikitext! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for advising how to combine sources while maintaining separate quotations. I can look into how I might help convert these. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Ping me if you have any questions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems @Genericusername57 exquisitely devoured this task of folding citations before I could begin. Thank you, job well done. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Not quite how I would do it (I think horizontal format is much better), but nice work nonetheless. Something I would point out: an explicit "et al." (and the associated "ref=CITEREF...") is neither necessary nor desirable with Harv templates. I have taken the liberty of converting one instance ("Steensma") with this edit to illustrate how specification of four authors is automatically displayed as "Steens, et al., 2013". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Two more things I should mention. (1) {Harv}, and {cite} in cs2 mode, do not automatically add a terminal period; suitable punctuation needs to be added. (2) The {{refn}} template is a hack for "bundling" notes ("references") where people are under the misapprehension that each in-line citation must be packaged in its own <ref> tags inside of another note. This is not needed, and it is less confusing (fewer braces to track!) to use explicit <ref> tags. Illustrative edit here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was the Extended Clinical Assessment citation removed?

I gave another piece of medical evidence for the detransition/desistance statistics that seems to have been summarily removed, without being mentioned in the talk session.

I understand that there's some controversy regarding the distinction between the two terms, but there isn't a desistance page (and not all who desist are children). Given that detransition is in this page also defined as deciding not to identify as trans, regardless of one's desire to engage in further medical treatment, the study I posted is relevant.

Here is the link to the study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359104518825288 (And it's well worth reading if you're interested in understanding the motivations of adolescents who change in their identification.) Pastaitaliana (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Pastaitaliana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastaitaliana (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

'Wiki Loves Pride'

off-topic discussion

Pastaitaliana Thank you for your valuable contributions to the Detransition article. Keep in mind: detransition (as with Conversion therapy) undermines a foundational LGBTIQ narrative and 'Wiki Loves Pride' WP:WLP. BirrungPark (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC) User:BirrungPark, could you please clarify what you mean in your above statement? It sounds detransphobic to liken detransition with gay-conversion therapy, and to describe detransition as "undermining" a "foundational" LGBT+ "narrative". We're not here to pit trans against detrans (or anyone against anyone). Detrans folk exist and have social, legal, and medical needs regardless of (separate from) trans rights. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC) I said what I said. BirrungPark (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Medref tag

Discussion regarding the Medref tag has been scattered in multiple locations. Many sources have been added since the tag appeared in January 2017 December. Is this concern still present? Thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In short, yes. As discussed above, the tag will likely remain until more secondary sources (literature reviews) on these primary source studies are published in reliable journals. This may take a long time, but that's okay, because there is no time limit for page templates. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 18:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The tag was added in 2017 December, 15 months ago (it was boldly removed and immediately re-added this last January, hence the date mistake). At that time (2017 December), the article had 16 sources, all from the news. Today, the article has 36 sources: 20 of which are from the news, 10 from medical journals, 5 from online sources, and 1 from a book. How long is enough? How many sources is enough? It seems this article might be held to an unreasonably and ever-higher standard for possible political motivations. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The medref tag's link was recently changed. I changed it back to this new section, in an effort to consolidate the scattered conversation. For convenience, here are links to previous conversations on this topic, in the order they were created:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Detransition/Archive_1#Rates_of_suicidality_following_transition
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Detransition/Archive_1#Summarization_of_WPATH_study
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Detransition#WP:MEDRS
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Detransition/Archive_1#Detransition_is_rare
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Detransition/Archive_1#If_detransition_is_the_treatment,_what_is_the_complaint?
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Detransition/Archive_1#Danker_study.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Detransition#Detransition_is_not_rare.

A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a few questions about sources and formatting related to MEDRS:

• Although the long-form refs at the bottom of the article are sorted by type (book, journal, news), the short cites obscure that information. What do you guys think of using custom harvids to reference the news sources by publisher (New York Times 2019) rather than by author (Journalist-lastname 2019)?
• The bundled citation for occurrence (the one supporting the 0-95% range) quotes the 2.2% figure multiple times, but as far as I can tell, the various sources are all referencing the same Swedish study. I think we should (a) remove that duplication and (b) possibly sort the figures by whether they're measuring childhood desistance or adult surgical detransition.
• The article's still a bit light on non-news sources. I've been looking through google books, but a lot of the possibilities look a bit sketchy. What do you think of these?
  • White, Jess (8 January 2019). "Whiteboard". In Sikk, Helis; Meyer, Leisa (eds.). The Legacies of Matthew Shepard: Twenty Years Later. Routledge. Personal account plus general reflections by an LGBT author.
  • Boslaugh, Sarah (2018). Transgender Health Issues. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781440858888.
  • Yoo, Alexander (2018). "Transition Regret and Detransition". In Stewart, Chuck (ed.). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Americans at Risk: Problems and Solutions [3 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781440832369. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • Beattie, Michael; Lenihan, Penny (2018). Counselling Skills for Working with Gender Diversity and Identity. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 9781784504816. These people say that they think therapists should "help these clients ... let go of their desire to de-transition and reverse what may have been years of treatments."
  • Jeffreys, Sheila (2014). Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge. ISBN 9781317695943. A radical feminist perspective
• Cheers, gnu57 21:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, when you say "the long-form refs at the bottom of the article", I think you mean the items in "Sources" list. And when you say "the short cites", I think you mean the items in the "References" list. I believe the naming of references primarily by author is in accordance with Harvard conventions. May I ask the motivation to name refs by publication-and-then-author instead? Also to clarify, the higher numbers of detransitioners didn't all desist in childhood, they merely began IDing as trans in childhood. I've update our page content now with more specific ages of detransition. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your answer. I know that using the publisher name is non-standard Harvard formatting, but I thought it might be good to differentiate somehow between scholarly sources and news ones, e.g., by using surnames for academics (Jones 2018) and publishers for news (BBC 2019), since the name of the particular journalist is typically unimportant. It occurs to me now, though, that some of the news sources are opinion pieces, where who's writing does matter a lot—so the citations probably are better off as is.

Thank you also for clarifying that point in the occurrence section; I am not at all familiar with the subject, but it seemed to me that the childhood studies focussed on persistence/desistance of self-identification as transgender, as opposed to changes in gender presentation/sex characteristics.

Two more comments: (1) In my trawl through gbooks, I was surprised to encounter multiple sources saying detransition was common among elderly transitioned people entering nursing homes. Do you think this is relevant here? (2) Since the individual accounts section involves living people, I'm thinking of adding a BLP template to this page. Cheers, gnu57 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The adolescents and young adults in the two studies I know contained a mix of those who transitioned socially only and those who also transitioned medically to various degrees. I'm unaware of studies on elderly detransition, please include those if you can, thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to give a try for a few of the elderly examples, because I do think they're relevant. I've been adding information on other forms (ie, temporary etc.) of detransition bit by bit, because I think it's important that the page reflect the wide range of experiences. Feel free to comment out if you think it needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastaitaliana (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Fictional characters

Should we add fictional characters such as Mr. Garrison? --Sharouser (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I went looking for secondary sources discussing that portrayal, and found only a passing mention in this slate article, which says Most famously, gay man Mr. Garrison, the kids’ teacher, went through a two-year stint as a trans woman only to de-transition back to malehood, and that entire storyline was played for laughs based on disrespectful stereotypes.—so I'd say no: not enough sourcing and too tenuously connected to real-life detransition. Cheers, gnu57 13:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A science-fiction character was also added, by the way (its removal is seen here). I'm undecided/neutral on the inclusion/removal of these two fictional characters. They're relevant, but I'm unsure how meaningful they are. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that neither of these two characters should be included. Neither of them are particularly relevent, and South Park is, well, South Park. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Detransition vs transgender desistance

Today, I removed a sentence from the article which read, "A 2008 study of gender dysphoric adolescents found 61% to desist from their transgender identity before reaching adulthood, and a 2013 study found 63% to desist," because desisting is not detransitioning, which is the cessation and reversal of a gender transition, and the sentence in particular doesn't even mention the subjects of the study transitioned at all. The information was re-added by @A145GI15I95: with the assertion that the sources use the terms interchangeably. To support this, A145GI15I95 cited the following sources:

• This article in The Stranger, which defines desistance as "trans kids [who] eventually identify as their sex at birth", without reference to transitioning
• This article in The Atlantic, which specifically describes desistance as distinct from detransitioning
• This source, in which the only use of the word "desistance", "desist", etc is simply to cite this Medium.com article, which defines desistance as the resolution of children's gender dysphoria by the time they are adults, which also differentiates the two topics

In order to avoid an edit war, I have not yet removed the statements again, but to me it is clear that the conflation of the two topics is WP:SYNTH on A145GI15I95's part, not supported by the sources as they claim. I would like to assume good faith on A145GI15I95's part, but they have an apparent history of disruptive behavior on this article in particular. For example, CANVASSING in [[REDACTED - Oshwah] this Twitter thread]. --Equivamp - talk 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Note: After this was posted, A145GI15I95's Twitter account was made private in order to make the link to their canvassing inaccessible, but it consisted of attempts to sway the results of the NPOV/other discussions above. --Equivamp - talk 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

The subjects of those two studies identified as trans, then years later reverted to non-trans identities. Transition doesn't require medical/physical changes, nor does detransition. The terms "detransition", "desistance", and "retransition" are used interchangeably by most sources, with little consensus as to distinction. My actions have remained with the realm of appropriate behavior on your linked rule page. However, you are now in violation of Wikipedia's privacy rules, in this attempt to WP:DOX. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere did I make the assertion that (de)transition requires medical/physical changes. My point remains that no, the sources do not use them interchangeably, and the information currently cited in the article supporting that idea does not, in fact, do so.

I do not believe my link violates any policy about personally identifying information, as it lacks any. I misunderstood the breadth of the policy and now understand how it violated Wikipedia's policies. @A145GI15I95:, I apologize. --Equivamp - talk 00:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that conflating adolescent desistance and detransition in adults is WP:SYNTH. The lack of consensus as to a definition or distinction does not mean it's okay to go ahead and make that decision on here.

In addition, I have concerns about A145GI15I95's apparent off-wiki canvassing and the subsequent influx of new editors to this page. This is not the way consensus should be built on this wiki. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You falsely accuse me of being a sock, of committing "sins", of citing Tumblr blogs, and now of being a canvasser. You deny the detrans community exists. You complain of reliable sources that you simply dislike. You bully me on my user:talk page. Your bias in gender identity is admitted on your user page. Please stop. A145GI15I95 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi A145GI15I95, if you believe that I am acting maliciously towards you, feel free to request a third-party dispute resolution or administrator assistance. Otherwise, let's keep this talk page on-topic. Equivamp noted that it appears you requested help on Twitter to strengthen your point on this page. That is known as canvassing. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"Let's keep this on topic", yet you keep bringing it back to hearsay and personal attacks. I already said I've done nothing outside the rules. An administrator already redacted the claim. Please stop. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The claim was not redacted, only the link which you expressed concern was "dox". The fact remains that you engaged in off-wiki ("stealth") canvassing right before a significant number of new editors began work on this page. --Equivamp - talk 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Equivamp: This page was also linked from the subreddit "GenderCritical" a few days ago [3], which has ~30k subscribers—I think that might explain the sudden explosion in page views and edits. I don't think A145GI15I95 should be blamed for the influx of new editors. I also don't think it's fair to characterise all the new editors as canvassed POV pushers—Pastaitaliana is new but has been making constructive additions. Cheers, gnu57 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recommendation? Given that it seems like newspaper articles (and common parlance) uses the terms interchangeably, and perhaps do so with good reason [I agree with @A145GI15I95: that it seems logically to follow that if transition does *not* require medical intervention, detransition would not require it either], perhaps the title of the page should be "Detransition/Desistance". There is no page about desistance as far as I can tell, and it does seem from journal articles (like the study I referenced below) that it isn't only children who "desist" in gender dysphoria or in an alternative gender-identification. Then we could have a section on "Medical Detransition" as well, which will be useful as that research starts to come out (GIDES is evidently reorganizing so as to track detransitions better). Thoughts, crew? Figured if I was going to make this recommendation, I'd best demonstrate some evidence of it:

• Early social transitioning of the gender nonconforming preschooler may be an option if child is persistent and insistent in the gender variance, such as stating that they are the other gender, and if the parents express a strong acceptance and desire for it. Since in this age group children are developmentally at early stages of gender differentiation, nonconformity among preschool-age children is less socially noted or ostracized. This may alleviate the need for actual social transitioning, for example, in preschool programs. These children may never present to a gender specialist or even as gender nonconforming to their pediatricians, and are often taken care of at the primary care level. Some suggest caution in social transitioning in this age group as the rate of desistance might be higher than in older children. Detransitioning at a later age can be quite difficult for the child and family." And: "There is also concern about children desisting in cross-gender identification after puberty and the impact of detransitioning if the child socially transitioned before" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-05683-4_7

--Pastaitaliana

"Desistance" is simply a polite/generic (less politically charged) word for "detransition". "Retransition" is almost a positive spin word (though adopted by some in the community). These words all mean the same thing: stopping IDing as trans. However that specifically manifests varies from person to person. Some keep their name, revert their name, or adopt a new name. Some keep pronouns, revert pronouns, take new pronouns. Some maintain dress, revert dress, or choose a new style of dress. Some continue cross-sex HRT, quit all HRT, or switch to same-sex HRT. Some never get surgery, some get surgery for the first time, some get new surgery in addition to surgeries from transition.

If someone IDs as trans, IDs as the opposite sex/gender, changes name, changes pronouns, changes style of clothes, takes hormones, gets surgery, or anything of those sorts, then they're trans. There are many competing perspectives and definitions, and there's no strict requirement that they do any minimum number of those things. And if they stop doing that(those) thing(s), then they've desisted from being trans, they've detransitioned or retransitioned. Detransition is the most common word within the community. How it manifests varies greatly based on histories and wishes.

Younger folk are less likely to've yet made many great physical changes, and they're more likely to detransition. This is noted and sourced in the article. But that doesn't mean youth who who detransition were never really trans or never really transitioned anymore than it means so for an adult.

This article has done a good job of walking the line of NPOV, stating facts without emotion, citing studies from both "sides". Though I still wish we'd stop fixating on statistics and declarations when we've so little data. The complaints here are from seemingly biased parties who apparently see detransition as a threat to trans rights. I believe treating detransition fairly should arouse no legitimate concern from any trans advocate or activist. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case, "Detransition/Desistance" seems like a good fix, given that they're synonyms. I haven't come across the retransition term at all, so it may be jumping the gun to add that to the top line, but definitely if there's a source, it's worth mentioning in the article! I'm still new to wikipedia but it seems to me that there are ways of marking AKA on pages? Pastaitaliana (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2019 (PDT)

Respectfully, I don't believe the article should be retitled as "Detransition/desistance", as "desistance" is a generic term for ceasing anything. It's also applied to ADHD, for example. Maybe "Detransition and gender-identity desistance", but I think that's unnecessarily wordy. The general term preferred by community members is simply "detransition". A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright, well I don't have a strong preference either way. I do think that the research falls into two categories generally, those who have medically transitioned v. those who have socially/identity transitioned, and that it might be worthwhile to lump the research results into those two groups. I'm just thinking of ways to make the page a little clearer and more readable, because there's a long list of symptoms/causes, and maybe sorting would help with legibility. Thanks for listening!Pastaitaliana (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2019 (PDT)

I appreciate your willingness to discuss, and suggestions to improve legibility. Differentiating kinds of trans folk is considered transphobic, and differentiating kinds of detrans folk is similarly detransphobic. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As noted above, the current citations that purport to show that the terms are used interchangeably, in fact contradict that claim, or at least do not support it. --Equivamp - talk 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't do any more work on more evidence as it didn't seem like it was helpful to the discussion on this page. But it seems obvious to me that these terms are doing the same work, esp the last sentence: "There is also concern about children desisting in cross-gender identification after puberty and the impact of detransitioning if the child socially transitioned before". Desisting seems to be the internal manifestation of detransitioning. You desist in identification (internally) and that manifests (externally) as a detransition. This is of course not the same thing as getting an SRS reversal, which would be a sub-category of certain types of transitions. --Pastaitaliana (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2019 (PDT).

The two studies of younger detrans folk (Wallien and Steensma) use desist [from having a trans ID] as an antonym to persist [with having a trans ID]. Again, desistance is a polite/technical term. Detransition is the colloquial/umbrella term adopted by the detrans community. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"Persist with having a trans identity" is not the same thing as "transition", so I'm not seeing the argument made that to desist is the same as transition. The sources cited as using them interchangeably don't. There have been no sources provided to support that "desist" is a technical term with "detransition" being an intracommunity term for the same phenomenon. --Equivamp - talk 23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

To persist trans ID is indeed to continue with transition, to continue being trans. Consider this sequence:

1) A person IDs as trans. They're now trans. Nothing further is required. They've begun transition. Transition may take further social, legal, and/or medical aspects over time.

2) Time passes, and this person still IDs as trans, they still are trans, their trans ID persists.

3) Later, this person desists from IDing as trans. They're now detrans. As in transition, nothing further is required. They've begun detransition. Detransition may take further social, legal and/or medical aspects over time.

The focus on removing studies of teenagers and young adults, who're least likely yet to've gotten surgery, who're the most likely age group to detransition, is an attempt to skew numbers back to "detransition never happens, detrans lives don't matter".

A145GI15I95 (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"Being transgender" is not the same as "transitioning". This is why Transgender and Transitioning (transgender) are able to be separate articles. To quote the Transitioning (transgender) article, "Transition must begin with a personal decision to transition, prompted by the feeling that one's gender identity does not match the sex that one was assigned at birth." Being transgender is the "feeling" described, and transitioning refers to actions taken. (Be they restricted only to the social sphere or not.) You're implying I have some agenda to "skew" numbers of people who detransition, when that is not the case, nor is it relevant to what the sources say "detransitioning" and "desisting" are. Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources say they are related but not interchangeable - including the sources you yourself have tried to use to support their conflation, as I showed above. --Equivamp - talk 20:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No one said being trans is transition. Identifying as trans is a form of transition (known as self ID). You cite two Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources. I question your motive in removing these two studies because the web is full of blogs and tweets from activists attempting to discredit these studies. Please stop removing stable content without reaching consensus here first, thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the way the particular statement is sourced is that the studies in the inline citation are still in the article regardless of whether they are attached to that particular statement. In fact, checking the particular revision, it looks like they're still there. My issue is not with the inclusion of the sources, it is with misleadingly conveying that they support a claim which they actually contradict. If you can produce RS which support the conflation of the terms, I encourage you to do so, as ample time has passed with the misleadingly-cited information being presented as fact on this article to allow time for it. Again, I don't have an issue with the sources cited in and of themselves, and I didn't remove them from the article - they're still there. I'm not an activist at all. Are you? --Equivamp - talk 22:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I confused this discussion of a removed definition with another thread in which studies have been removed. Regarding definitions, I've added more medical sources and rewording accordingly. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries, things can get a bit hectic when trying to address multiple things at once, so I understand how that can happen. I'm glad that we could get through that confusion to work on it. I think @Moeena: brings up good points about where to go from here (below) but I think I'm happy with it for now. The article will continue to grow as continued media coverage and research is done on the topic. --Equivamp - talk 03:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Equivamp is in the right here. Not all (in fact, I'd wager it's quite few) of the children in the desistance study identify as detrans or belong to said online communities. The article should use the terminology used by experts, not a colloquial usage used by a specific online community. There are more gender non-conforming children than there are transgender children, and calling childhood desistance detransition conflates the two. I think there should be seperate sections on childhood desistance and adult cessation of HRT/surgery/legal changes etc, especially because combining the statistics on the two is so SYNTHy. (See Frequency estimates for detransition and desistance vary greatly from 0 to 95%, with notable differences in terminology and methodology.) Desistance is much more common than detransition, but the current state of the article is essentially meaningless. Is the frequency of surgical detransition 95%? Is the rate of childhood desistance 1-2%? There's no way of knowing.

I certainly don't believe that seperating these two is going to send the message that detrans lives don't matter; that's a little hyperbolic. Reliably reporting on the research that has been done is going to cause no harm to the community of people who have detransitioned, nor is not doing so going to encourage people to join those online communities. If that worries you, it may be time to take a step back and cool down a little. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This section of talk is regarding the two youth studies (Wallien 2008 and Steensma 2013), which report persistance vs desistance of gender dysphoria and trans gender identity. Our article content summarizes their results succinctly and accurately. Desistance is a part of detransition, so their inclusion is relevant. The percentage range for all studies (in the introductory paragraph preceding the paragraph of studies) is immediately followed by the statement that frequency is greatest in the earliest stages. A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike Penner

Hello all,

I just commented out the addition of Mike Penner, because I thought it needed some discussion. While detransition is not solely a medical topic, the WikiProject Medicine manual of style, a higher standard than the general MoS, provides a sensible guideline for content and tone. In particular, the MEDMOS advice for mentioning notable cases or media portrayals is applicable here. I'm reluctant to mention Penner because, although he returned to his former gender self-identification, and lots of sources called his experience one of detransition, he didn't publicly self-identify that way.

I think that all the other individual accounts are fine to mention, since the people (a) publicly self-identify as detrans and (b) have received media coverage specifically for their detransition; I of course would be opposed to adding people based on speculation or tabloid coverage, or including fictional portrayals without strong secondary sources. Penner is a bit of an edge case, but I think that we should err on the side of caution on a potential BLP issue. Cheers, gnu57 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gnu, thanks for commenting! I'm not particular - I simply copied over the reference from the french language wiki on detransition. I guess here is why I think Penner might be a valuable case to add. First, he seems to be the first notable "detransition". Seeing how the discussion of such a new concept evolves over time can be important for understanding it. Second, he fits the definition of the topic in an "objective" sense - once ID'd as trans, then didn't. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that detransition as a term is both an identity and an objective medical term. We use detransition to talk about childhood desistance, adolescent and adult identification, and adult SRS reversal. It would make sense to me to have different names for these things, but I don't think that exists yet - it's still too new. Anyway, there are plenty of notable cases, so one more or less doesn't seem too important to me - I'll defer to group consensus :) Thanks again for opening up the chat! Pastaitaliana (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2019

I'd like to echo that the words detransition/detransitioner/detrans didn't exist or weren't at all well-known in 2008 (transgender/transition/trans were barely known to the general public then). I'm in favor of returning Penner's short bio, as it garnered noticeable media attention. And yes, I certainly would oppose any future introduction of tabloid speculations (such as with Caitlyn Jenner, for example). And I'm undecided on the recent introduction of fictional examples. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll restore the Penner bio. When I looked up news stories about him, I found the amount of armchair psychoanalysis and speculation about his motivations really offputting; but you guys are right that he is one of the first prominent cases, and the actual facts of his bio are well established. (It would be nice, though, to use a reference with more factual details and less speculation.) Thanks for your comments. Cheers, gnu57 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely agree with you that that armchair psychoanalysis is often less than stellar (and sometimes really icky). The source linked in the French wiki was a sympathetic commentator, so I thought that it would probably be the best one? (Tbh I didn't actually look around for new sources -- I should actually read a little bit about wikis in different languages and the expected syncing there). I suppose it is good at least to see that the way these issues are discussed has changed so much over the past decade. Thanks Gnu! Pastaitaliana (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)PastaItaliana

I suspect everyone here already knows this, but since no-one has outright mentioned this I will point out for the record that while Wikipedia can cite someone as an example of something even if contemporary sources didn't have a, or the modern, word for the thing (we have a whole article on the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln!), we do still have to have some sources which make the connection now, or else it's WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. In this case, one of the sources cited does use the word detransition, but the other seems not to(?) and replacing it with one which does also refer to Penner as an example of detransition would be helpful, since if only one reliable, non-tabloid source refers to Penner as such, it would not be WP:DUE to present him as such. -sche (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: The Friess article uses the terms "reverse transition" and "retransition" instead. The other source (which does say "de-transition") is a huffpost contributor article. I've found a book on gender and sport which devotes a chapter to Penner, calling his return to a male identity a "(re/de)transition"; I'm thinking of swapping that in for the huffpost source. Cheers, gnu57 22:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Pride before the fall

off-topic discussion
Wiki loves Pride. WP:WLP Pride before the fall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.197.179 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC for Medref tag

Seeking fresh, outside, neutral opinions on the "Occurrence" section's sources, per the Medref tag, please. Previous discussion is at Talk:Detransition#Medref_tag. Please note this page is tagged "Controversial".

The Medref tag was added 2017 December 27, 15 months ago. At that time, the article overall had 16 sources, all from the news. The medical section referenced 5 of those news sources, 2 of which referred to the same story.

Today, the article has 61 sources: 5 from books, 13 from medical journals, 32 of which are from news, and 11 from online sources. The medical section references 26 of those sources: 2 from books, 11 from journals, 15 from news, 1 from general online. Of the 11 journal sources, 2 of them reference the other 9.

Regarding this expansion of quantity and quality of sources, is the Medref tag still needed?

Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's good that there's been a big increase in the use of MEDRS-compliant references, but the 32 news citations suggests maybe that the tag is still appropriate. We need to be moving to a point where there are almost no non-MEDRS-compliant references for medical claims. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The majority of news sources support content outside the medical section, to cover the social and legal aspects of detransition, which don't require MedRS. News sources within the medical section only support the journal sources as secondary sources. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

News sources for social and legal issues are fine. In terms of medical content, WP:MEDRS discourages us from using any news sources. If they're just repeating what MEDRS-compliant sources say, they can be deleted from there. Bondegezou (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS does not mean that all medical sources are okay. It clearly discourages WP:Primary sources. It also goes over quality matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Staszek Lem's uneducated opinion

This is a malformed RFC. You need to ask a specific question. The talk section you link is a chaotic discussion of several things. RFC usually asks for uninvolved editors like me who have no idea what was going on with the article. You have to brief them, otherwise sorry, tl;dr.

Now, specific comments:

First, The section has LOTS of references, but at the moment I looked it I get a strong whiff of original research, namely WP:SYNTH. This is exactly how SYNTH texts look like: a reference per word: have been few in number,[8] of disputed quality,[9] and politically controversial.[10]).

Second, how many of the medical refs are primary and how many secondary sources? To figure it out, this is your job, not commenters'.

In other words, if I were you, the RFC request must be something like this: Of 100 footnotes, 30 refer to news, 20 to primary, and 50 to secondary sources. However the 50 2ndary ones refer to only 5 the same authiors. Do you think the Medref tag is still required? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I opened the RfC; I wanted to avoid leading the question on this controversial topic. I've reworded above per your feedback. On perceived synth of quoted sentence: A and B are not cited to claim an uncited C; A, B, and C are cited, and A + B ≠ C. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• As commonly happens, @Staszek Lem: makes good points and I concur. However, it seems to me that this entire issue is not one that needs urgent resolution, and the very fact that we are agonising over it suggests that we are in reasonable doubt, which in turn means that we should leave the tag for another year or two (when possibly we might have more instances and publications as a basis for something more like a definitive basis for a decision?) As things stand, I may be prejudiced, but I don't think that any reader of the current version with its cautionary tag should be in no doubt that the text is tentative, but helpfully intended, and serves as a basis for further reading if desired. JonRichfield (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. The very fact that we are agonising could indicate bias over a politically controversial topic, rather than reasonable doubt. It's unclear what specific changes are needed to address the tag, other than the repeated more. The quantity and quality of content and sources here are comparable to those of Transgender#Healthcare and Transitioning_(transgender), which are free of complaint. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Individual Accounts

Hi all. We have a lot of individual accounts at this point, and I worry things could get cluttered. I thought I'd check in about notability, and defer to group consensus. Thoughts on comedian Will Franken's detransition? Worth adding? https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/30/comedian-who-came-out-as-transgender-reverts-back-to-a-man/ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-i-began-living-as-a-woman-then-decided-to-transition-back-a6788051.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastaitaliana (talk • contribs) 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The section's length is still in fine proportion to the other sections. There may come a day when it should break into a separate article, but not yet. Regarding Will Franken, I remember when this comedian's story broke (here it is also on Link TV). It generated interesting conversations at the time (in reliable and unreliable sources, positive and negative). I think it's notable enough for addition. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The list is growing and is near the point of becoming a random collection. If it gets any larger, it should follow the same rule as for other lists on Wikipedia: if people are notable enough to have an article, list them. If not, don't. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If someone is featured in one article in one RS, e.g. Anthony and Robinson, then that does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. We need to see an individual be covered by multiple RS. Bondegezou (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we could begin to reword the section as prose that focuses more on shared social themes and experiences, and to be less like a list of persons. A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sarah comes across to me as a less serious case and perhaps something of a publicity thing. If mentioned at all, evidence of the publicity aspect should be included, but it seems to me like a blip on the screen of the larger issue, in spite of the coverage it generated at the time. Jzsj (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and while Jonathunder's suggestion of paring the list to people who have articles would bring it in line with similar articles I can think of (e.g., the list in Trans woman is kept to only ones who have articles), I was hesitant, because it'd also remove much of the section's contents. However, the more I think about it...are there other articles where we give paragraphs to multiple non-notable i.e. non-article-having people's individual experiences of the topic? African Americans doesn't seem to contain accounts by individual AAs of what it's like to be African American, Trans woman doesn't seem to contain a section of accounts of (non-notable or, to much extent, even notable) trans women's experiences of transitioning and being trans, Sex reassignment surgery doesn't seem to contain individual accounts of people who've had SRS. The closest I can find is Ex-gay, which has blurbs on individuals, but apparently only ones who meet WP:GNG i.e. have their own articles, which is back to Jonathunder's point. I'd say, remove anyone who's only attested in one RS, per Bondegezou, but whether to include other people who may not have articles but are covered in enough RS to suggest they have some importance (e.g. possibly Walt Heyer, who I ran into mentions of while looking up something else related to this article the other day), I'm not sure.
The suggestion above to refocus on (or even just, add content on) commonalities would be good to the extent that there are RS pointing things out as being commonalities or being generally the case—we should avoid just looking at a number of accounts and saying "well, several/most/all of these accounts have feature X, so...", because that's liable to run into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. (One possible commonality I saw suggested in the sources I was looking through yesterday is that people who detransition tend to be at earlier stages of transition, it being very rare among people who've had surgery. Something else to look into would be whether any RS report on it being more common among one sex/gender or another.) -sche (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur with that.

If there are particularly famous cases, I think they can warrant inclusion, but those should only be exceptional cases. For example, Christiane Völling gets explicitly mentioned at Sex_reassignment_therapy#Consent_and_the_treatment_of_intersex_people for a specific reason as a first. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I agree that the individual cases of detransition are numerous enough that not all of them should be included (unlike, say, spontaneous human combustion, where the small handful of possible cases are all mentioned).

I've been a bit reluctant to open this potential can of worms, but how about drafting another section called something like "associated activism", to explain the viewpoints of detransitioners publicly known for their advocacy like Callahan, Heyer, and possibly Anthony, as well as other people who've written extensively about detransitioning from various perspectives and received secondary-source coverage like Debra W. Soh, Ryan T. Anderson (the anti-gay marriage public intellectual guy—I'm very surprised he doesn't have an article), Julia Serano, and Sheila Jeffreys? The "What is a Woman" New Yorker article has some background information as well about the views of radical feminists and transfeminists. Cheers, gnu57 10:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Never mind, I've realised this is unnecessary and overall a bad idea. gnu57 16:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If individuals are of particular note, they should have their own articles. They could be mentioned briefly here, perhaps in an annotated See Also section. We have some text discussing activism around detransitioning: we could include notable people within that...? Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The Mitchell and Anthony stories were removed. I can see Mitchell as less notable, being reported by only two sources in a single month. Anthony has been covered in several sources over multiple years, so I re-added him with further refs. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this section remains the largest in the article. That seems wrong to me. Are all of these examples necessary? Bondegezou (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've made a bold move: removed Robinson and Belovitch content (since their stories are more isolated in time), moved the sources that focused only on them to Further reading (they're good stories), and refocused remaining content on the more notable persons (with less "this magazine on that date" language). Hope this addresses the concerns without offending fans of the content. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think these new accounts could use some work. Specifically, I think it would be helpful to say *why* the blogs that they run are particularly notable, since I can't think of many other articles that list bloggers on the topic. Regarding the Lepovic section, As his views became less essentialist sounds like editorializing to me. The articles I read don't mention essentialism or explain what it is. (?) I don't propose removing them entirely, but they certainly could be edited down. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓

Revised. A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Jokestress' comments

Discussion was based on comments by a user under a topic ban. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sam Hope 2019 book Jessica Kingsley Publishers came out with a book this year that nicely summarizes the bias underpinning this entire article. I propose we include this quotation: Detransition is held up as the bogeyman, is held against trans people. Our transitions must be sure, and certain, and final, otherwise they are not legitimate. But of course, real life is much messier. As a therapist, a big part of my job is to be able to stay with client's uncertainty and hold quite a posing desires and needs. Trans people detransition. And retransition. And alter trajectory. And change their names and pronouns more than once. All this is entirely valid. We can know that transition benefits the people who undertake it, but we can never know if transition is right for us, or the person in front of us. We cannot cure someone of being trans, but what they do about being trans is up to them. However, society will have a heavy bias towards 'gender transition is bad,' so we should probably worry less about a trans person being unduly influenced to not transition. Unfortunately, there seems to be a disproportionate level of concern around trans people making the wrong choice towards transition perhaps because there are still underlying social attitudes that it is never the right choice. The extent to which trans people are subject to gatekeeping, having their decisions questioned, or having barriers placed in their way, is quite extreme. Source: Hope, Sam (2019). Person-Centred Counselling for Trans and Gender Diverse People: A Practical Guide Jessica Kingsley Publishers ISBN 9781784509378 Jokestress (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC) I'm struggling to think of another article that includes such a long quotation (other than articles about documents, which quote those documents). If the source is "due", we could probably condense/summarize it in less than three paragraphs... -sche (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Agree a summary would be preferable. Just including the full comment on Talk as it nicely outlines the issues. The key phrase in my opinion is "a disproportionate level of concern around trans people making the wrong choice." Jokestress (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC) I agree with the inclusion as it does outline the whole issue well, to me a lot of the quotation is highly relevant...in clumsey cut down fashion Our transitions must be sure, and certain, and final, otherwise they are not legitimate. But of course, real life is much messier. ..... Trans people detransition. And retransition. And alter trajectory. And change their names and pronouns more than once .... We can know that transition benefits the people who undertake it, but we can never :::know if transition is right for us, or the person in front of us. ...We cannot cure someone of being trans ...However... society will have a heavy bias towards 'gender transition is bad .... Unfortunately, there seems to be a disproportionate level of concern around trans people making the wrong choice towards transition perhaps because there :::are still underlying social attitudes that it is never the right choice. The extent to which trans people are subject to gatekeeping, having their decisions questioned, or having barriers placed in their way, is quite extreme. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Amber Roberts 2015 Vice article Here's another nice secondary source with some first-hand reports and expert commentary to counter the pervasive bias in this article: This may explain why it's more common for someone who has originally transitioned from male to female to want to detransition; the eight most common examples of those who have detransitioned are all male to female to male. I only came across eight people in the world online who have actually gone through with it. "The numbers are so incredibly low," Dr. Bowers told me. "If anything, it reinforces the validity of gender transition in the first place." Roberts, Amber (November 17, 2015). Dispelling the Myths About Trans People 'Detransitioning.' Vice— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokestress (talk • contribs) van Anders guidelines (2019) Here's a great document with proposed guidelines for value-neutral language and conceptual framings, with a ton of helpful peer-reviewed academic work: Talking about Transgender Experiences, Identities, and Existences at Conferences Obviously, this document can't be cited in articles, but it will be helpful for those new to the frsmings about this term. Jokestress (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Hi, I noticed this article has a neutrality tag on it, dated March 2019. I've reviewed the article and I do not see any POV problems at this time. Are there any current POV concerns? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Mooeena added the tag in March 2019 (diff) and started a discussion in the talk page: Talk:Detransition/Archive 1#NPOV. Some things in the article have changed since March. One of the challenged statements is still there: The number of detransitioners is unknown but growing.. Maybe Mooeena or someone else can elaborate on current major NPOV issues, if any. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that, while the unknown but growing sentence has a lot of sources, it clearly both contradicts and is encompassed by the earlier Frequency estimates for detransition and desistance vary greatly, with notable differences in terminology and methodology - ie. it looks like what we're doing is first saying that it varies greatly, then selectively citing people who say it's increasing. Also, the citations, on close examination, are mostly not very good - one person (or a few) saying they've seen more people is anecdotal evidence; preliminary findings shouldn't be reported as fact; Singal is a WP:BIASed source whose opinions on this topic cannot be cited on this subject without in-line attribution (and who carefully hedges with "appeared to be"); and the last one says more youtube videoes are appearing, not detransitioners. At the very least several of those cites have to go, since they don't support the point being made. EDIT: By my reading only one study there seems to support the idea that there is solid, reliable evidence behind there being an increase rather than vague anecdotes, opinions, or preliminary findings. --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Aquillion has it spot on. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 01:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I also agree with Aquillion's assessment. It seems like the earlier sentence ("...vary greatly...") says what the RS actually support saying. -sche (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a classic "phenomenon vs. term" political debate. This biased article reifies a transphobic ideology akin to the ex-gay movement. I propose adding a few sources to improve neutrality, starting with this one:

• Robinson CM, Spivey SE (2019). Ungodly Genders: Deconstructing Ex-Gay Movement Discourses of “Transgenderism” in the US. Social Sciences doi:10.3390/socsci8060191 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokestress (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the phrase in question has been stripped down to one study, I've removed the NPOV tag. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Desistance: Own Article

The paragraph on "desistance" in the "occurrence" section is interesting. The rate of GID desistance from childhood to adulthood has important implications for medical and legal treatment of transgender adolescents. Does this subject merit its own article? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a very long article. I'd suggest focusing on improving and expanding on the current content here. If there's plenty of material we can write, with due regard to WP:RS and other policies, then we could see about a spin-out article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The "rate of GID desistance from childhood to adulthood" aspect is already covered in the Gender dysphoria in children article. It doesn't need its own article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Terrible science

Your 2017 "study" about the occurrence of detransitioners "growing" did not make any link to prove that. The "study" is just a blog post by one of the writers of a website known as Quillette, which is also known to publish articles about phrenology. The "study" was accepted at the disputed journal, Taylor and Francis, who are well known for publishing fake science and even hoax articles. So please reconsider anything by Lisa Marchiano to prove a point in this wikipedia article.

The 2009 "study" you linked titled "Does Gender Dysphoria in Young Children Persist?" is also not a study. It is a letter.

The 2008 study "Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children." only studied 77 kids and had a 30% drop out rate. They were studying very small kids, who would not be eligible for hormonal treatment anyways. This study is also connected with the website TransgenderTrend, which is well known for trying to undermine the existence of transpeople.

The 2013 study "Factors Associated With Desistence and Persistence of Childhood Gender Dysphoria: A Quantitative Follow-Up Study" is just a follow up to the 2008 study.

The entire page is linked to news articles with no real weight to them, or spouts that the evidence is low quality, while also mentioning a bunch of crap articles. So I highly recommend removing the awful articles linked on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkveela (talk • contribs) 05:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I deleted one sentence based on the dubious 2017 not-study that you pointed out and may do more work later. Please note that you're free to edit the article yourself. Wikipedia:Be bold. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Referencing is a mess

How many distinct and medical sources does this article actually cite and what are they? Extremely hard to tell at a glance because of the way references are bundled, repeated, and formatted, with some articles appearing many times as different citation numbers. Attempting reference standardization and reorganization.

Also, the Sources section is way too long. This goes beyond list of works used and it goes beyond a listing of notable related works. Should be integrated and/or shortened. CyreJ (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction - this use of Harvard citation style is one of the standard options. I find it confusing and untransparent and it's making it hard to evaluate sources for the purpose of the "needs more medical references" template. But I can't rearrange the whole article for one person's personal preference. CyreJ (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed re: activists viewing detransition as a political threat to trans rights

It seems like the following statement:

Detransitioners say they have been harassed by activists who view detransition as a political threat to trans rights.

needs significant clarification if it's going to be kept in the article. The controversy surrounding the political relation between trans activists and detransition is one of the more significant as well as scandalous aspects of the subject, so its vague treatment here does not strike me as sufficient. It reads as if it were part of the lede of an article that would go on to specify which activists, what sort of threat, which rights, and on what basis such a perception occurs.

In particular, the body of the text should include information about a) the nature of the political threat activists perceive detransition to pose and b) the rationale behind those beliefs. Until then, an entire dimension of the topic of detransition — the dimension concerning its reception by trans activists and its relationship to trans issues — will be left insufficiently addressed. Insufficient because on this site, the description of complex conflicts between groups with opposing viewpoints should be accompanied by specific statements that describe the nature of each party's belief, the reasoning behind those beliefs, and the points of contention that cause conflict to arise. Not treating such a (as the sources note) fraught issue with the proper degree of rigor can lead to equivocation. For example:

• The quoted portion of the Pollock citation mentions neither that activists view detransition as a political threat to trans rights nor that detransitioners have been specifically harassed by trans rights activists because their detransition is perceived as a threat to trans rights. The inconvenience caused by the complexity of the viewpoint of detransitioners to all sides of the political spectrum does not imply that any side of that political spectrum views detransition as a threat to trans rights, only that detransitioners' unique perspective frustrates, for example, the narratives of both trans activists and conservatives. The statement that immediately follows does not imply that trans rights activists are harassing Carey because detransition is viewed as a threat to trans rights. It may imply that she is facing harassment because her voice contradicts the simple narratives of trans activists and/or conservatives, but importantly, the idea that detransition is a threat to trans rights is a position that is never attributed to anyone.
• The relevant part of Herzog reads: "This has ignited a contentious debate both in and outside the trans community, with various sides accusing each other of... harassment.. and damaging the fight for trans rights." To say this is, of course, wildly different than to say that detransitioners say they have been harassed by activists who view detransition as a political threat to trans rights. The difference between the perception that detransition poses a threat to trans rights, and the accusation that some group of people that is partially or wholly composed of a few, some, most, or all detransitioners poses a threat to trans rights is completely elided. For example, if a group of people that includes detransitioners are perceived as transphobic by trans activists, and they are attacked or harassed on that basis, it does not follow that those activists believe that detransition the topic or practice — the change in an individual's self-identification from a gender that they were not assigned at birth to the one that they were — poses any threat to trans rights or that harassment is occurring on the basis of that belief.
• (Veissière is irrelevant; a quote from it that relates to the claim "Detransitioners say they have been harassed by activists who view detransition as a political threat to trans rights" should be found or it should be removed.)
• The Tobia citation does not mention detransition being viewed as a threat to trans rights. It is about the negative attitudes towards detransitioners in the trans community, but it does not claim that anybody views detransition(ers) as posing a threat to trans rights, only that they are viewed as embarrassments, traitors to the cause, and so on.

I'm being this thorough only in order to demonstrate how the brevity of the treatment of an important topic allows all sorts of equivocations to occur, allowing inaccurate misrepresentations of cited material to lead to inaccurate misrepresentations of the views and practices of activists themselves. These equivocations include

• that between activists' dislike of transphobic groups that may in whole or in part include detransitioners, and their dislike of the act or subject matter of detransition itself
• that between the threat detransition(ers) itself/themselves may pose to trans rights, and the threat other groups' receptions, publicizations, or framings of detransition(ers) may pose to trans rights
• etc. etc.

In short, in order to prevent these equivocations, the part of the article in question should be significantly clarified. I am not familiar with the literature on detransition, so I don't have any sources ready to hand that could clarify what it is about detransition that activists, according to detransitioners, view as a political threat.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.208.132 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Sources and MedRS

Noticing a lot of this article leans on primary medical sources, going against MedRS policy. May trim article and sources or replace sources to secondary ones if possible. Also unclear if this much detail on individual detransitioners is WP:DUE for the overall topic. Rab V (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

One can barely cover this topic without primary sources or media sources. As a WP:Med editor who routinely employs WP:MEDRS (which is a guideline, not a policy), I will point out here that WP:MEDRS's WP:MEDDATE section is clear that its preference for secondary sources/reviews "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." This topic obviously falls under that category.

You can argue for reducing the article to a stub or otherwise significantly downizing it, but getting WP:Consensus for that is a different matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

James Caspian

@ZoeB: Please see WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources have to say about a subject. Reliable sources have described Caspian as:

• "a counsellor who specialises in therapy for transgender people" (BBC)
• "a psychotherapist who specialises in working with transgender people" (The Guardian)
• "a counsellor who specialises in therapy for transgender people" (Sunday Times)
• "a psychotherapist who works with transgender and transsexual people" (The Independent)

If you believe that this is false (i.e., that in reality Caspian did not specialise in transgender counselling), then you might wish to contact these publications and ask them to correct their stories; but Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research disputing this reliably sourced information. Cheers, gnu57 21:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction 6/11/20

Correcting an egregious error: "Desistance in gender dysphoric adolescents may be higher. A 2008 study found 61% desisted from their transgender identity before reaching the age of 29,[16] and a 2013 study found 63% desisted before age 20.[17]"

Both studies cited (Steensma 2013, Wallien/Cohen-Kettenis 2008) were on young children referred to gender clinics, not "gender-dysphoric adolescents." The 2009 review by Stein of Wallien/Cohen-Kettenis makes this clear in the title. Only the follow-ups years later were done once these children reached adolescence. Additionally, different methods of calculating 'desistance' are being cited in this article: the 61% figure (33/54) omitted the 23 non-respondents to follow-up (who obviously couldn't be marked as either persistence or desistance). The 63% figure from Steensma grouped all non-respondents into the desistance group, artificially inflating the figure. Also, not all participants were transgender to begin with (for example, in the Steensma study, less than half of those marked as "desisters" had been diagnosed with GID, and even less had begun any form of transition).

Correcting to: "Desistance in pre-adolescent children referred to gender clinics may be higher. A 2008 study found 61% desisted from their gender incongruence before reaching the age of 29, and a 2013 study found 63% desisted before age 20."

Corrected following sentence to "A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period." 108.31.146.220 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Citing Jesse Singal

Singal is a commentator with no particular expertise in the field and a well-known bias who is, nonetheless, cited extensively throughout this article, mostly to pieces that are WP:RSOPINION and which are nonetheless cited for statements of fact. Since we're already using far-better sources every place where Singal was cited, I removed him, but Crossroads objected on the grounds that his opinions were published in the Atlantic and are therefore citable under WP:BIASED. While this is technically true, if we are going to do so we need to provide an in-line attribution indicating that this is merely Singal's opinion every time we cite him; he can never be used for unattributed statements of fact. Doing so would be nonsensical in situations where better, non-opinion / non-WP:BIASED sources exist; Singal is citable for his perspective and to illustrate the point of view he holds (WP:DUE permitting) but there is no reason we would ever want to cite him for facts when better sources exist. --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes if the are better sources, use them. Agree with what you say above. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Singal source is an artifact from when this article had far fewer RS. I think it's significantly improved since then and so his piece in The Atlantic is no longer necessary; I'd support the removal. --Equivamp - talk 21:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Well-known bias" is just your unsourced opinion. His article in The Atlantic was a cover story, not just some opinion piece. It's still necessary because we say "[Callahan] was profiled by The Atlantic in 2018." The source qualifies as a WP:RS for the social views it is being cited for. There is no reason to remove it except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the fact is he has no expertise and clearly does not pass WP:MEDRS (many of the things he was being cited for were obviously MEDRS-sensitive.) There is no reason to cite his opinions outside of WP:ILIKEIT, especially given that we have far more higher-quality ones now. Nor is there any particular reason to think that the existence of the profile in the Atlantic, itself, is anything but trivia. --Aquillion (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not support wholesale removal; in particular, I think the Atlantic article is a perfectly fine source for the sentence Those who undertake detransition are known as detransitioners (certainly better than the Graham presentation recording and slides). It was also being used to support biographical details about Carey Callahan, like the fact that she worked at a gender clinic. gnu57 03:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Society and culture material is not Wikipedia:Biomedical information, as discussed by WP:MEDRS. A quote about attacks on social media, for example, does not need a review article in a medical journal. People who are trying to cut stuff from this article should re-review MEDRS and then state here which exact portions of MEDRS are violated by the text. Aquillion had also tried and failed to purge Singal from another article at Talk:Hypatia transracialism controversy/Archive 2#Removal of Jesse Singal from the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Since transitioning (and detransitioning) is, in part, a medical procedure, anything that makes or implies claims about its effects, success, or frequency obviously falls under WP:MEDRS. The occurrence section is therefore definitely not cultural commentary; we can't you thinkpieces from non-experts for things like Frequency estimates for detransition and desistance vary greatly, with notable differences in terminology and methodology or similar statements. And, on the whole, the article has better sources now (very little text has to change to shift to better sources.) Beyond that, I'm baffled that you would proudly cite your own restoration of Singal to the article a few weeks ago given that discussion here was three-to-one against it; consensus isn't a nose-count, but the WP:ONUS is on people who want to include contested material to demonstrate consensus, and I'm definitely not seeing it right now. I get that you think he's cool, but he still has no expertise, and therefore isn't a particularly great source when we have so much text cited to experts in the field (and, indeed, when we can cite the important things to higher-quality sources.) I also disagree with the idea that we can use non-WP:MEDRS sources for "attacks on social media"-style coverage when that is being used to present a medical position as unfairly under attack, because doing so carries the implication that a valid medical position is being unfairly suppressed, which can be used to advance WP:FRINGE arguments. For example, the statement Caspian alleged the reason for the university's refusal was that it was "a potentially politically incorrect piece of research, [which] carries a risk to the university", and everything that flows from that, is a WP:MEDRS sensitive claim, because Caspian is alleging that the reason his theories about a medical procedure are not broadly accepted is because he is being suppressed by sinister, conspiratorial forces and not (as the university says) because his methodological approach was flawed. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think we need to say as profiled in the Atlantic. I don't really know what that adds. However I do think you are drawing too broad an approach to MEDRS here. It only applies to biomedical information, not general information. While I concede the line is not always clear I don't see why frequency necessarily needs a MEDRS source. Effects and success does though. But there is still scope to include individual experiences or commentary through interviews or published non-MEDRS sources (i.e. I don't see how MEDRs can be required for social commentary on the procedure). AIRcorn (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's good that Crossroads pointed to WP:Biomedical information. It's not unusual for me to see editors (almost always non-WP:Med editors) misapplying WP:MEDRS. Although WP:Biomedical information is a supplement page, it is how WP:MEDRS works. That is why it is linked at WP:MEDRS. Not everything in a medical article or in an article that has some medical aspects will need to adhere to WP:MEDRS or strictly adhere to WP:MEDRS. Perhaps it's time to bring WP:Med into this. In the meantime, I'm pinging WhatamIdoing to weigh in since she is one of our main medical editors and commonly offers sound advice. Since, unlike the vast majority of other WP:Med editors, she is sometimes involved with trans topics, I'm also pinging her because of that. She's aware of the different types of trans issues. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary Sources

In line with the WP:MEDRS discussion in the previous section, also want to note there are several primary sources that are cited against WP:MEDRS policy. I tried to remove some but was reverted with the justification they are in peer-reviewed journals. Instead of edit warring will reply here by noting that MEDRS is clear that primary sources are ones where "the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or at least supervised those who did." Right off the bat, the German study and Gender Role Reversal among Postoperative Transsexuals fails this though more likely do as well. Will also note the source Outbreak: On Transgender Teens and Psychic Epidemics is definitely primary as well, but is a Jungian analysis as opposed to a pure medical study and would likely only be usable only for opinions by the author. Rab V (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You are allowed to use primary sources, there is no MEDRS policy forbidding them. Sure academic reviews and the like are much better, but primary sources (properly attributed) are better than the usual opinion pieces that litter these articles. Especially if there is a lack of published reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

" Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" is bolded in the lead of MEDRS and I don't see compelling reason to ignore that for an especially contentious article. Also using a source that refers to trans people as an 'outbreak' or 'a psychic epidemic' clearly flies in the face of larger professional that do not discuss trans people as diseased or mentally ill, like APA, WPATH or WHO. Rab V (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding that most of the primary sources are not attributed in article so I'm unclear why Aircorn included the mention of proper attribution. Also unclear that changing the statements to attributed quotes would be better than removal since without secondary sources discussing the authors we don't have a sense of their importance in this field. Rab V (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

To repeat what I stated in the #Primary Sources and MedRS section you started above, "One can barely cover this topic without primary sources or media sources. As a WP:Med editor who routinely employs WP:MEDRS (which is a guideline, not a policy), I will point out here that WP:MEDRS's WP:MEDDATE section is clear that its preference for secondary sources/reviews 'may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published.' This topic obviously falls under that category."

Editors here also need to keep the WP:Biomedical information page in mind. Although it's a supplement page, it is how WP:MEDRS works. That is why it is linked at WP:MEDRS. Not everything in a medical article or in an article that has some medical aspects will need to adhere to WP:MEDRS or strictly adhere to WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that section, I forgot I had that conversation and was likely to busy to follow up at the time. WP:Biomedical information supports my arguments. It states that biomedical information "should be supported by a reputable biomedical source." Though not everything in the article fits under that category, rates of desistance and the efficacy of informed consent medical models fall under the Attributes of a Treatment Or Drug category since they concern "whether a treatment works, and to what degree." I will also note MEDDATE quote supplied only says primary sources MAY be OK in certain circumstances, not that they necessarily are. This isn't a case where there are old reviews and expert opinion has changed with high quality primary sources coming out. These are controversial studies, including that Lacanian analysis that refers to trans people as an epidemic, and clearly do not reflect a major shift in expert opinion. Rab V (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course, primary sources are not automatically okay. I prefer non-primary sources for academic topics and often point to WP:SCHOLARSHIP (just like I often point to WP:MEDRS when it's justified). But use of primary sources can't always be avoided, even for us medical editors. There are times that there are medical topics or medical aspects that get so little attention from non-primary medical sources that the article may heavily rely on primary sources, and media sources for some parts. Husband stitch and vaginal steaming are two such cases. The topic of detransition hardly gets attention from non-primary medical sources; it hardly gets any attention from medical sources. So we do relax the WP:MEDRS standard in cases such as these. The other option is to not have an article on the topic at all. But the detransition topic is obviously WP:Notable and very much concerns society and culture aspects. So it either gets its own article or is a WP:No page matter.

The "What is not biomedical information?" section of WP:Biomedical information lists things like "Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment, including religious or spiritual beliefs; religious beliefs about causes or cures for a disease (e.g., information about the evil spirits causing mental illness)" under "Beliefs", "Social stigma against a condition or treatment, information about disease awareness campaigns or advocacy groups, public perception, public funding for research or treatment, etc." under "Society and culture", and it has a lengthy "Medical ethics" section. I'm asking people to keep all of that in mind when editing the Detransition article. What falls under WP:MEDRS can be debatable, as is clear by discussions on this talk page. So bringing in WP:Med editors for commentary can help. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDPRI is clear that reviews are preferred, but primary studies can be used in the absence of reviews. Results from single studies can be introduced as such: instead of "X is true", one can write "A study of Y suggested that X is true". Much of that MEDRS guidance is written with a focus on treatments, does drug X treat condition Y, where we want to look to systematic reviews of multiple RCTs. A topic like detransition does not fit that model, so some interpretation is required. Ergo, I support the view that we can use primary studies, but we should definitely prefer reviews (where they exist!) and we should definitely take care, particularly given the controversial nature of discourse in this area. Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it's not just reviews or primary sources that we can use. There is a "Choosing sources" section at WP:MEDRS. Per WP:MEDBOOK, we can also, for example, use books. Of course, as noted there, some books are better quality than others. We want to go for the quality ones or decent ones. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand the position but think instead of arguing more abstractly it might be helpful to talk about specific sources/writing in the article and figure out together if they fit wiki guidelines. For example is the Marchiano source a usable source? It isn't a medical study and assumes the position that trans people are part of a 'psychic epidemic.' I'd say the source seems more like personal analysis from a nonnotable source that contradicts more established medical consensus by WHO, APA, etc. Rab V (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Marciano does not argue that trans people are a psychic epidemic. It's a reasonable thing to assume from the title, though. The topic of that article is not even trans people, per se, nor any one subsection of society. The concern is largely with intolerance of gender nonconforming, and in some cases, with residual homophobia in society -- to the effect that large numbers of gender nonconforming kids and teens are being pressured by doctors, medical/school officials, and sometimes by parents into transitioning, and with irreversible medical intervention, sometimes at ages 11-14. The vast majority of which are, as of only the last few years, natal females, which was completely unheard of before around 2010. In one example, the parents of an elementary school boy who did not confirm to make stereotypes, but still considered himself a boy, were told by the principal of his school that he "had to pick one gender or the other. Either he quit wearing pink crocs and cut his hair, or start coming to school as a girl." On a side note, to trans activists...you would do well to remember that for many years, gays and lesbians were continuously accused of trying to "recruit" children. At this particular moment nobody would dare hurl any similar accusations of transfolk, lest they be called transphobe、 But consider: if large numbers of would-be cis kids are pushed by doctors into transitioning, sooner or later the shit will hit the fan when these people realise when they're older they aren't trans after all (and I did say IF). Therefore, it is in the best interests of trans activists to stay out of it, lest they should be held responsible for any mass sterilisations of children... (Also, please know I am very much against all forms of intolerance, so dont accuse me of transphobia. Gay and lesbian youth being ridiculed into transitioning is not trans advocasy: it is homophobia. Calling out homophobia for what it is is not transphobia.) Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The topic of that article is not even trans people, per se - if that's the case then we definitely should not be citing it. The focus of this article is detransitioning, not Jungian psychology. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The psychic epidemic phrasing is used in the source beyond the title, it's clearly contentious and out of step with modern consensus. Removed it and was reverted by Flyer22Frozen despite their lack of comment on issues with this source. Rab V (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted the recent removal of Marciano pending further discussion. Since this article also discusses desistance, it's not unreasonable to use the source for desistance material, especially when it comes to social rather than medical content. The following text should be moved out of the Occurrence section and into another section, perhaps into a new section: "Detransitioners have commonly cited trauma, isolation, dissociation, inadequate mental healthcare, and social pressure as motivations for pursuing transition." I also see other material that should be moved out of that section. This is because when one looks at the title "Occurrence", they are expecting prevalence material, not all that other stuff. As for what the source covers, if it's not covering detransitioners, then source has been misused and it should be removed for destransition text, and the destransition text it's used for should be removed or have an adequate source support it. I have not yet read the Marciano source. So I will read it once I've logged off for the day. In the meantime, maybe someone else can address here on the talk page what it covers? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"[O]ut of step with modern consensus." What is?

And, of course, I was going to comment after reverting. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

That being trans is not an illness and such language is unduly stigmatizing. APA and WHO have made statements to that effect. Rab V (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A hurricane delayed me. So I haven't looked at this source yet. Will try to get around to that soon. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've read half of the source so far. While I understand why the Jungian analyst thing and some other things about the source can and has turned some off to it, I wouldn't state that, given the few sources (especially few academic sources) on this topic, we shouldn't use this source. It can be validly used for a few things in the article, like it is currently used. The source does address both desistance and destransition. I haven't yet come across it stating that being transgender is an illness. I'll read the rest tonight or tomorrow. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Might want to update the article

This article does reference the Keira Bell case, but hasn't been updated to reference the outcome. The outcome that was reached on Dec. 1 2020 ( https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-children-under-16-can-23096605 ) should probably mentioned in the paragraph refrencing her case. --1234567891011a (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added something along the lines you suggest. Thincat (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The professionality of this article

Referring to the 'Occurence' section. I can't say in the history of going on this website have I seen a section with this severe of a preamble. Do we trust the methodology of wikipedia to make proper articles or what? Or have we allowed ourselves to let current morality get in the way of writing proper and pure to the standards of wikipedia? 2 scientific studies could literally be used to cite any major study according to the standards of this website, but now it's "few and far between" and "controversial" and "disputed? to link the detransition rates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8090:1509:A0A0:ED0C:CAC:D106:B36C (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The standards of Wikipedia require editors to neutrally and proportionally present what reliable sources say on a subject. In this case, as shown by the inline citations provided, the reliable sources describe research studies on the topic of detransition to be few in number, of disputed quality, and controversial. --Equivamp - talk 01:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

James Caspian ethics form

The article currently cites this leaked ethics form on James Caspian's proposed study of detransition (published online by Radio Canada) for this sentence: An ethics form, leaked in 2019, bolsters the university's claim that the proposal was rejected due to methodology, noting issues such as a sample size of between 1 and 4 participants, and significant privacy and safety concerns. However, the actual form says something quite different, mentioning political correctness and PR risks but not sample size. Its discussion of "ethical issues" is, in its entirety, as follows:

"This is an ethically complex research project. The research project was initially approved by the ethics committee, however when the researcher attempted to recruit participants none were forthcoming. The researcher now wishes to amend the focus of the project to include those who have had surgery but not reversed it and to advertise on an International website.

Engaging in a potentially ‘politically incorrect’ piece of research carries a risk to the University. Attacks on social media may not be confined to the researcher but may involve the University. This needs to be assessed by the University Ethics Committee.

The researcher states that there may be issues in advertising on this website from trans activists. He refers to the risk of attack on social media and his attitude to this is that he doesn’t engage in this form of communication and so it is unlikely to affect him. He needs to rethink this. He also needs to rethink the face to face interviews; given his concerns with the sensitive nature of the topic and the lack of screening in place, how can his safety be guaranteed?

There is no mention of the emotional or psychological impact of the research on the researcher. He is a psychotherapist and he should consider having some debriefing mechanism in place for himself.

He also needs to make it very clear to the participants what will happen to the data. He guarantees that the data will be seen only by the researcher. This is not accurate. Given the context in which the study will be undertaken, the data will need to be made available to the supervisor(s), the examiners and will also feature in the dissemination through journal articles and conference presentations.

Identified ethical issues which need further consideration:

• Explanation needs to be provided as to why the research material is ‘minimised, dismissed and politically incorrect’. Further consideration then needs to be given to the ethical implications of this.
• Risk to the University – the posting of unpleasant material on blogs or social media may be detrimental to the reputation of the University. This needs to be assessed and addressed.
• Risk to the researcher – the posting of unpleasant material on blogs or social media needs to be considered further. Whilst not a social media user comments may be placed elsewhere which could be upsetting to the researcher. Therefore, he needs to provide details about how he intends to protect himself from harm, both from personal attack and from cyberbullying.
• Risk to the researcher - Provide evidence that the researcher has discussed the study with a professional (medical or psychotherapy practitioner) known to him and can confirm that he can draw on their support where necessary
• Risk to the researcher - it is stated that interviews might take place in the interviewee’s home or a friend’s home. The risks of this and how they will be mitigated need to be addressed.

1) Safeguarding the participant - there needs to be written confirmation not just that personal therapy will take place for the participant but what that therapy will be so that it can be assessed as appropriate. There then needs to be confirmation that support is available where necessary throughout the duration of the project and beyond it.

• It is stated that interviews will be recorded on cassette tapes – how and where will these be stored, how will the raw data be destroyed.
• Change the information provided about confidentiality to reflect the fact that the data will be made available more widely than he describes.

This was further discussed with the Dean of the Institute of Education and the ethical approval form has been declined. This is a complex project and the risks are too great to the University and the researcher. Working on a less ethically complex piece of research to complete the Masters would be more appropriate."

Since the description of the form's contents as it currently stands is misleading and partly incorrect, I will correct it. -- 2601:80:4580:E0E0:3CB6:7DDD:1111:6E36 (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

German article on detransition

The post cites an article in a scientifc German paper "Der Urologe". However, the article is more of a review of existing literature, even close to an op-ed on transition/detransition. It is not a study that underwent scientific scrutiny or presents statistically reviewed numbers. I think it is wrong to cite it as evidence for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.182.85 (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the Bosinski source. As a secondary source published in a peer-reviewed medical journal (Der Urologe), it is a preferred source for citing medical information on Wikipedia. --Equivamp - talk 23:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

removing ambiguous survey which seems misleading (also WP:PRIMARY)

Hi all, the following reference:

A 2018 survey of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) surgeons found that approximately 0.3% of patients who underwent transition-related surgery later requested detransition-related surgical care.[14]

is suspect, upon going to the original article. The survey asked people about their experiences with patients, "We asked respondents to report the number of patients encountered who expressed regret or sought detransition, the characteristics of the patients, surgical history, reasons cited for detransition, and whether any reversal procedures were performed. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics." This just tells you that people who responded to the survey (about 30%) hadn't met anyone who asked them in particular for help with detransition, and compared it to the number of people they treated. That isn't the number of people who had transition related surgery who later requested detransition-related surgical care. If you are a physician who does surgeries to help people transition, it is not clear if someone will return to you or another doctor who helps people transition, if they were not happy with the procedure you did previously. In contrast, if all patients were surveyed post surgery after say 10 years, to ask if they had detransitioned (or a random sample) (taking into account the Swedish study mentioned later), that would be useful information.

I would like to remove this phrase as it doesn't seem to be a reliable measure of how many people seek surgery for detransition as a fraction of those who have surgery in total, which is what it is being stated as. Please advise? Thank you. Jdbrook (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Have removed. The number of "encounters" with detransitioners, divided by the number of surgeries someone does, is not the way to calculate the fraction of detransitioners. That is not the fraction of people who had surgery who detransitioned,that's the number that these surgeons "encountered", at some point. Following up all people who had the surgery, 5, 10 years later, and asking their status would do it. But again, if you decided SRS was not for you, it is not necessarily the case that you would tell the surgeon who did it in the first place. Some people have tried to go back to the surgeon who did their SRS. One anecdotal example is here. Anecdotes are insufficient but all that seems to be available right now. Jdbrook (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Detransition vs Desistance

Thanks to those working on this article; this is an important topic. However, I don't understand the distinction between detransition and desistance as presented, prominently, in the article. -Reagle (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To my understanding, detransitioning is the reversal of permanent treatments such as hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and gender reassignment surgery. Desistence is simply the non-persistence of a previously held gender identity. -Fjgwey12 (Fjgwey12) 19:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Critical commentary" paper

Regarding the paper cited in this edit, and also cited lower already, there are two papers following up on that paper criticizing it. [4][5] These should be included too per WP:NPOV. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Truthfully, the bigger problem is that we shouldn't be giving so much weight to individual studies in the first place (per WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided.) This is obviously a complex and abstruse field, and there is substantial disagreement among the studies (eg. wallien et. all alone says In our study, 50% of the gender-dysphoric girls seemed to be persisters, whereas Drummond et al found that only 12% of gender-dysphoric girls seemed to have persistent gender dysphoria) - reading these papers I do not understand at all how they are being cited for such concrete and specific numbers when their authors themselves are far more cautious. (I'm also not sure why we have a paragraph on desistance here in the first place, since it's specifically distinct from detransitioning; these papers largely don't seem to discuss detransitioning at all, which makes sequing into desistance a bit WP:SYNTHy in that implies without stating it that desistance numbers are connected to detransition numbers.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

New source

Hi folks,

Here is a new source about an Keira Bell, who is mentionned in the article. MonsieurD (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of desistance reference

Hi @NewImpartial:, you have removed:

A more recently published study of 139 boys found that 12.2% persisted, 36.7% were "subthreshold."

[6] on the grounds that this is an older study. I am happy to remove the "recently published" qualifier, although I do not see why it makes the statment more accurate. It was to indicate that it came out (although the data are from an earlier period) after the Steensma paper discussed on the page. The readers can check the information for themselves as the quotation in the reference spells it out. The quotation is from the published research article. I am asking you here to avoid edit warring and would like to know if you have any other objections the phrase "recently published". Thank you. Jdbrook talk 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Reworded it to more accurately represent the study. Aircorn (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Aircorn (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The best thing about this study is that it is available for everyone to read for themselves. Unfortunately, this does not make up for its many shortcomings, namely that it rehashes tired concepts and frameworks (read the footnotes!) and is co-authored by two of the most controversial retirees in the field, along with their former Ph.D. student who has taken almost a decade to find a journal that would publish this outtake from a dissertation. This is neither good data not a respected contribution to the field, in spite of its recent acceptance for publication. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect that is not our call to make. If you have some sources to back up your claims then they can be used to either provide criticism in the article or to allow us to judge its suitability. We have so much self-publishing and opinion pieces in this topic area that a good case needs to be made to not use a recent peer reviewed journal study. Aircorn (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I do not see the justification for removing this study, which you have just done again. RabV removed it because it was primary, but most of the sources on this page are primary, due to the lack of research in this area. So that reason does not hold, and it was returned to the page as a result. Is there evidence that the numbers reported on the Wikipedia page are incorrect? Or is there some other paper which says the result is unreliable? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 03:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Other primary sources being used does not imply they should be or that adding another betters the article. If anything over reliance on primary sources is a good way to create plenty of WP:RS and WP:DUE issues. Rab V (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect that is not our call to make. It absolutely is. As WP:RS says, Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. An unusual study making shocking claims in a complex and abstruse field like this one, when secondary sources are available is the definition of the sort of source we should not be using. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this source adds much value to the article. The subjects of the study were those seeking treatment for childhood GD circa the 80s, and those followed-up with with more or less just those who were seeking clinical treatment for eg sexual orientation. It doesn't provide any useful information about modern desistence rates, and Zucker says as much on Twitter. Also, @CycoMa:, this revert does not seem constructive to me. WP:ONUS/WP:BRD. How is it helpful to reinstate disputed content while a discussion seeking consensus is ongoing, especially when it's a discussion in which you have so far declined to take part?--Equivamp - talk 07:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the material should stay out of the article while we discuss it here, as per WP:BRD. Let's not edit war.

Under WP:MEDRS, we should favour reviews. But without those, it can be appropriate to cover primary studies, as the article currently does. If we're covering some primary studies and not others, we need reasons based in Wikipedia policy as to why we're including some and not others. Recency can be a reason: here, we have a paper that is recent, but the data was collected somewhat less recently, so I'm uncertain that helps much!

It seems to me that this section is not overly large. Ergo, there is space to include something on this paper. We need to describe it accurately (the sample are those seeking treatment for childhood GD some years ago). I think the text that was inserted reads poorly, so I certainly support some re-wording. We should not give this study undue prominence. Equally, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to make WP:OR judgments as to the quality of a study. If a reputable journal has published it, then we respect that. (If commentaries or replies are published that cast doubt on it, then we can act on those.) Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

My sense is the occurrence section is already on the long side, even before considering it's reliance on primary sources. I agree the wording was confusing. As a secondary question, would you also support re-including the statement removed in this edit. My preference overall is just to use secondary sources even if they don't give hard numbers on occurence but the reasoning for why the Danker primary source shouldn't be used seemed like OR. Rab V (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I support including the Danker text. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Back to original question, thank you everyone. I suggest replacing the entire paragraph with:

For childhood onset, desistance rates have been measured to range from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally.

Source is a secondary review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26754056/ quotation:" As is shown in Table 1 there is much variation in the reported persistence rates between the studies, ranging from 2% to 39%. " and " Based on this information, it seems reasonable to conclude that the persistence of GD may well be higher than 15%. However, desistence of GD still seems to be the case in the majority of children with GD." I do not believe that subtracting 2, 39 and 15 from 100 is OR, in case that gets brought up. The Wikipedia article is about desistance, so those subtracted numbers are the relevant information.

The current paragraph has 4 sentences, describing 2 studies. Two of the sentences are about why the results of the one of the studies in the previous sentence should not be taken at face value. I would suggest getting rid of all of them and just putting in that one sentence, since it includes all 3 data sets we are talking about, although not the possibly updated analysis of the 2021 paper. The "Desistance rates among young children may be higher." does not seem a good summary of 60-98% compared to the numbers of the previous paragraph. These rates are higher as reported, not "may be" higher. Maybe better to just not make the comparison. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 14:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

To return to Jdbrook's proposed source, I don't think it is DUE to include the proposed claim derived from it uncontested or in Wikivoice, given the ensuing critical commentary and debate. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's how it generally works for most contested articles. What we can't do is exclude a perfectly valid source because we consider it poor by our own interpretations. Aircorn (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Our own interpretations? Frontiers Media is already on thin ice as a source per WP:CITEWATCH and is supposed to be evaluated by editors on a case-by-case basis. --Equivamp - talk 20:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the journal is questionable per WP:CITEWATCH, the source is primary, there is literature criticizing the proposed source in other higher tier sources, and other sources exist to discuss occurence, I don't see why including this source would improve the article. Rab V (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay then, that makes a much better case than just saying this with no evidence. Aircorn (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are talking about two different sources. The one referred to in this diff is the 2021 primary source published in Frontiers; the one proposed here is the 2016 secondary study that should not be presented in wikivoice given the ensuing debate. These are not the same source, although Jdbrook is trying to use both of them to make similar claims. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This 2016 review article [7] linked above can and should be used as a source. Any in-text attribution should just say 'a 2016 review article' or the like, maybe stating what journal it was published in. As for the ensuing debate, it would be, and is, absolutely POV for the article to present this without this. The former of those two is currently cited twice, once about children's desistance rates, and again for more general criticism for a whole paragraph. That must be balanced out per WP:DUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added the secondary review. I also removed the primary sources, i.e.

Desistance rates among young children may be higher. Of children referred to gender clinics for either gender dysphoria or gender non-conformity, a 2008 study found 61% desisted from their gender incongruence or nonconformity before reaching the age of 29 and a 2013 study found 63% desisted before age 20. However, the study (by Steensma et al.) was criticized for its methodology; 28 of the 127 children did not respond to a follow-up, and were classified as desistors. In addition, all the children in the persistence group had previously received a full diagnosis for gender identity disorder, whereas half of the desistance group were initially designated as "subthreshold" for the diagnosis.

If this was not the appropriate conclusion, apologies for my misunderstanding. My impression was that a solid secondary outweighs the primaries, especially as so much of the removed text was about issues with one of the primaries. I see that the two critiques which disagree with each other, mentioned above, might also be of interest but have not studied them. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 02:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Please discuss rather than undoing edits. You are welcome to add the critiques if you wish, but I did not see a solid objection to the secondary. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 03:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted by others, you did not add a solid secondary: you added a highly controversial secondary, but without noting the critical reception. That isn't cricket. Newimpartial (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I invited people to add the controversy, i.e., the criticism and the challenge to that criticism, you can check my wording above. Several others have suggested it as well. Currently, a secondary review is being omitted, in favor of two earlier primaries, because of a debate amongst primaries. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 12:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, the rationale for the WP:MEDRS recommendation for secondary sources is that they help in determining the valuation and weight to be assigned to primary source evidence (as well as to provide interptetation). When a secondary source is even more controversial than the primary sources it is based on, I don't think it is necessarily DUE to include it; it is certainly not policy-compliant to present its findings in Wikivoice as you have proposed to do. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: A primary criticizing a secondary does not make the latter a controversial source.

The primary paper by Temple Newhook et al claims there are problems with some desistance studies, and then in fact appears to have issues with the ideas of desistance entirely ("The tethering of childhood gender diversity to the framework of “desistance” or “persistence” has stifled advancements in our understanding of children’s gender in all its complexity.”).

There are at least 2 rebuttals to Temple Newhook et al, the rebuttal by Steensma and Cohen-Kettenis mentioned above, and https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1468293 . The latter rebuts in detail their issues with "(1) the terms persistence and desistance in their own right; (2) methodology of the follow-up studies and interpretation of the data; and (3) ethical matters." In addition, the 2021 paper which I included earlier, which shares one author with the 2nd rebuttal, also addresses the Temple Newhook et al [8] criticisms. This suggests that Temple Newhook et al is perhaps a controversial primary.

What is the evidence that the primary Temple Newhook et al outweighs the secondary by Ristori and Steensma? It appears one could note the discussion between different primaries as has been mentioned above, but a primary criticizing a secondary does not seem to be grounds for removing the secondary. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 01:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If your inclination is to interpret all critical responses to secondary studies as a primary criticizing a secondary, and thereby to dismiss them, then I am not convinced that you have understood the requirements of WP:NPOV in controversial areas of research and scholarship. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:What is your justification for wanting to remove this secondary in particular? You have noted one primary which criticized it (and actually seems to not like the entire topic of study). This criticism has been rebutted at least 2 or 3 times, depending on how you count, by other primaries. Why is this review article by one of the experts in the field (Steensma is one of the authors of the Dutch Protocol, which is the paradigm for the youth treatments, you can check the 2014 deVries et al paper) considered inappropriate because someone else wrote an article, a primary, which does not like it? I am asking about this particular case. Also, if you give weight to PubMed, which some do, this primary which criticizes the secondary does not appear in it (nor do 2 of the responses, but the 2021 Singh, Bradley and Zucker paper does). You are certainly not suggesting that any secondary be removed if a primary criticizes them? So what are the criteria?

What was suggested by other editors is to include the secondary, and then, if you or someone else wished, to include the disagreeing primaries if you thought it was needed for NPOV. Leaving it as it is, with only 2 of the older primaries, and detailed specific criticisms of one of them, and omitting the higher level and later secondary or the later primary which addresses the criticisms, is an inaccurate representation of the literature. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 05:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, this edit results in POV, flat out. Reverting a secondary source in favor of primary sources is not acceptable under WP:MEDRS. And presenting only this rebuttal without the rebuttals to it is POV. The authors of that source also helpfully admit that their POV is not the scientifically mainstream one. It has been widely suggested that over 80% of transgender children will come to identify as cisgender... (emphasis added). According to this rebuttal, those authors wish to abandon longitudinal studies on this altogether, which is quite peculiar. If you wish to re-add Temple-Newhook et al., you should not be replacing the secondary source. Note too that it is already covered in the last paragraph of that section, starting with "Criticisms have been made regarding..." Even so, the rebuttals to it should be added. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, WP:NPOV as a policy takes precedence over attempts to wikilawyer MEDRS. Please stop re-adding text that presents controversial findings in Wikivoice - the status quo text is attributed, as it should be. Newimpartial (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Aircorn (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

An answer to what? Newimpartial (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Aircorn, if you disagree with Newimpartial's edit warring, [9][10] please revert them. I can't be the only one doing that and it's pointless to sink hours into a debate here repeating myself with different wording to get them to WP:LISTEN if they aren't willing and/or going to WP:FILIBUSTER. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I count three editors who have objected to this content, not one. And per WP:ONUS, you know you should not be reinserting it without policy-compliant consensus on Talk. Encouraging other editors to revert against policy doesn't really become you, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The only one objecting to this revised and recent edit is you. Policy is more than WP:WIKILAWYERING over ONUS, by the way; it's also WP:PSTS and WP:NPOV. And when it comes to the three of us against one, consensus is not unanimity. And anyway, WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes based on really liking one source and disliking another are invalid anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I have found another secondary (PubMed) review also quoting 80% desistance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841333/ . It actually quotes the secondary review that we have been discussing,

Evidence from the 10 available prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence (reviewed in the study by Ristori and Steensma28) indicates that for ~80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC, the GD recedes with puberty. Instead, many of these adolescents will identify as non-heterosexual.17,29

Again, the original review I wanted to insert is a reliable secondary, its being quoted in another secondary re-emphasizes that fact, although the author's reputation and its status as a PubMed review, i.e. a Wikipedia secondary, were already sufficient. @Newimpartial:, two authoritative secondaries consider this result worth quoting, either one would make it appropriate for inclusion by Wikipedia policy. You have claimed it is a "controversial" result because of a primary that does not even appear in PubMed and which has been rebutted at least twice. You have not justified why overruling of secondaries by a controversial primary (also, but just controversial primary should suffice, not in PubMed, not as authoritative an author) is an appropriate reason to remove something from Wikipedia. As people have noted, if you wish to discuss controversy, the criticism and its rebuttals can be quoted, in addition to the secondary. The edit you have removed should be restored. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 04:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads, regarding your the three of us against one comment: first of all, that seems to me a particularly combative and unproductive way to frame a content dispute. Secondly, if it's coming to a headcount (which it most definitely should not), you can count me among the editors who object to the way the current article version parrots controversial reporting uncritically in wikivoice. Srey Sros^talk 04:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

SreySros I agree with you that a vote does not make sense as to which papers to include. Wikipedia already has a process for determining which ones are most appropriate, and secondaries outweigh primaries. This returns to the question, why are these secondaries being labeled as controversial rather than the primary which got rebutted by other primaries (which actually seems to be calling for studies of desistance, that is, the area of research under discussion, to stop entirely)? Newimpartial has removed a secondary because of a controversial primary which does not like the secondary. Those who wish to include the controversy are welcome to add, in addition to the secondary or secondaries, the primary and its rebuttals. Where are the authoritative sources which show that these secondaries should be omitted? Right now the page is inaccurate, only citing 2 older studies and older criticisms of them, which have been superseded by the review. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 05:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

But that particular review has not superseded the older studies - it is, indeed, even more controversial than the earlier studies it is supposedly summarizing. Newimpartial (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: The "controversy" to which you are referring is a controversial primary which was rebutted immediately, and thoroughly, by at least two others, and which does not appear in PubMed. The secondaries, authoritative reviews, by Wikipedia standards, report information which is currently being left out. The current entry is outdated, biased and incomplete. So again, why are the secondaries outweighed by this primary? (It also appears to be fringe as it seems to say the studies should in fact no longer be done, but that is not necessary for this primary to be insufficiently authoritative.) You claim a controversy because one primary dislikes it. Controversy amongst primaries is not new, and is the reason that their inclusion is discouraged in Wikipedia. A disputed primary, which is what you keep referring to, is not sufficient for removing two authoritative secondaries from Wikipedia. Where are the secondaries supporting your evidence, which outweigh the two you are currently claiming do not merit inclusion? If they exist, then all can be included to ensure NPOV. You have not provided WP:MEDRS quality evidence for keeping these secondaries out. They qualify for inclusion and provide information currently lacking in the article. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 17:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You are making it sound as though your secondary represents the undisputed consensus in the field, but this is far from being the case. Aside from the debate I have already pointed to, these authors are carrying out a parallel debate over the same evidence, with reference to the same review and similar sources, in the BMJ. Another journal, BJPsych Bull, recently re-vamped its editorial policy in response to the correspondence it received after publishing articles based on the same 2016 secondary that reflected the underlying perspective of the 2016 review's authors. To regard this topic as an area of "regular science" in which the POV of those 2016 review results can be presented in wikivoice seems a quite substantial error. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Your BKPsych Bull link doesn't work.

Okay, two simple questions for you and SreySros:

1. What policy-based reason is there not to replace the primary sources about desistance rates with a secondary source when whatever controversy that secondary source is allegedly subject to applies equally to the primary existing sources; and to replace it while holding everything else, including in-text attribution, constant? Can we at least agree on this very simple application of MEDRS?

2. How is WP:NPOV satisfied by detailing Temple-Newhook's views twice, but not at all including the rebuttals to their rebuttal?

Keep WP:STONEWALLING in mind. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not an answer to those questions, as I do not agree with the framing, but I have fixed the link to BJPsych Bull. Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as MEDRS is concerned, I take the relevant instructions to be

Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies ... and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities ... Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources.

Speaking only for myself, my problem with your, and Jdbrook's, proposed changes is that they would replace attributed statements about specific studies with blanket statements in Wikivoice. In a situation where there is in fact no agreed-upon medical or scientific consensus, writing our article as though such consensus existed would be a disservice to the reader. My position has never been that the current text is perfect, but that the proposed changes would make it worse.

As far as the second point is concerned, the two citations to Temple-Newhook given in the stable version concern two quite distinct criticisms of the review article and studies underlying it: one is narrowly methodological while the other is much more of a fundamental, conceptual nature. While I have no objection to covering the debate on these and related issues in more detail, it would be transparently misleading to characterize Temple-Newhook's position as though it were ideosyncratic, when it actually comes from a much wider literature that disagrees with the 2016 study from within the relevant field. Newimpartial (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: The current entry lists two older results and their criticisms. It leaves out two secondaries, authoritative reviews by experts. It also leaves out later work addressing these criticisms. As you repeat:

demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies ... and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities ... Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources.

The recent authoritative review articles are exactly what you are trying to keep out.

The lack of more recent work addressing the earlier criticisms, which exists, is also being kept out, which again violates NPOV. The paper by Singh, Bradley and Zucker, 2021, which discusses previous work, has been kept out because people claimed here there were already too many articles (but ones which are incuded are older, so it is not clear why not to drop them), because someone said that articles have to be considered on a case by case basis from that publisher (with no evidence of errors in this work in particular), and because, as you said, " it rehashes tired concepts and frameworks (read the footnotes!) and is co-authored by two of the most controversial retirees in the field, along with their former Ph.D. student who has taken almost a decade to find a journal that would publish this outtake from a dissertation. This is neither good data not a respected contribution to the field, in spite of its recent acceptance for publication. " None of these are reasons that the later work is unreliable. This last is your opinion.

So currently only 2 earlier results (3 papers cited) and their criticisms are present. This is not NPOV. It is inaccurate to say these represent the knowledge in the field. The review or reviews should go in. If you wish to put in/leave in papers criticizing the desistance numbers, then please also include their rebuttals/updates for NPOV.

Lastly, the two papers which the BJPsych Bull controversy refers to, which you quoted, seem to be arguing about different treatment methods for gender dysphoria. The controversy is not about the desistance rates, although they are quoted, it is about treatments. You can read the corrections of the Evans paper yourself. [11] This article appears to aim to clarify the editorial process for papers in this field.

The secondaries you are leaving out are exactly the first on the list you yourself quoted of what belongs in Wikipedia. The current page omits these and does not accurately represent the controversies between reliable sources, again, because it lacks the rebuttals, just criticisms of older papers. Please follow the rules you have just stated.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 03:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, what two secondary studies? I have only seen you present the one from 2016, which is controversial as I have noted.

Second, I am not opposed to including the 2016 study - although I am not sure what it adds to the primary studies already included, since it is not authoritative nor does it document a scientific or medical consensus on the topic because there is no consensus.

But, as I say, I am not opposed to including the 2016 study. I am opposed - as I have said pretty much every time you or Crossroads have proposed that edit - to presenting its findings in wikivoice. WP:NPOV does not allow that, and whatever the limitations of the stable version of this article, the passage in question is all attributed appropriately. That is what I am trying to preserve; I am not trying to keep anything out.

And I have read the Evans paper and he ensuing corrections, thanks. If you don't think the controversy about it touches on desistance and related issues, then I don't know what to tell you. Newimpartial (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay I’m starting to suspect a lack of neutrality going on here. I read through some of the arguments here and I will so no reason not to mention those statistics. All statistics have their pros and cons. It’s not like Wikipedia is treating these statistics as perfect.

Our job is to present information from what reliable sources say, we present views from various sides. Let’s keep our opinions out of the mix. CycoMa (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I shouldn’t be surprised too much this is a controversial topic after all. But remember what our job is. CycoMa (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Two secondaries. From above, secondary 1:

For childhood onset, desistance rates have been measured to range from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally.

Source is a secondary review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26754056/ quotation:" As is shown in Table 1 there is much variation in the reported persistence rates between the studies, ranging from 2% to 39%. " and " Based on this information, it seems reasonable to conclude that the persistence of GD may well be higher than 15%. However, desistence of GD still seems to be the case in the majority of children with GD."

From above, secondary 2:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841333/ . It actually quotes the secondary review that we have been discussing,

Evidence from the 10 available prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence (reviewed in the study by Ristori and Steensma28) indicates that for ~80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC, the GD recedes with puberty. Instead, many of these adolescents will identify as non-heterosexual.17,29

The second secondary is quoting the first secondary. It has more information than the original post, as it notes there are 10 studies. These are both PubMed reviews by experts in the field.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 12:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

All right, you are correct; technically, yes, that is another secondary study. Although I still don't see how a one sentence mention, relying on the earlier study in almost all respects, is supposed to add WEIGHT in a context as fraught as this one. There clearly is no consensus in this literature, either within the PUBMED sources or outside of them. I also think we need to be paying more attention to the statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies, rather than concentrating on one or two, highly controversial "secondary" studies. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

These are exactly secondary studies. They are listed as reviews in PubMed. They are by established experts.

Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies ... and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities ... Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources.

The single secondary already was sufficient, but there are in fact two, both attesting to the status of these results among experts.

You have listed some controversial primaries, one of which seems to call for studies in this area to stop. (I am fine with not including the primaries about this topic, although the rebuttals to the ones you included make for interesting reading.)

The current page is biased, listing 2 older studies, criticisms of one of them in detail, and omitting more recent studies, omitting rebuttals of the criticisms and omitting the current understanding of the field. This is not NPOV. There are 2 secondaries which would improve this and you keep saying they are not good enough because some new disputed primaries dislike them.

Several people have suggested, in order to go forward, that you or someone suggest how you would include the new primaries (both sides) and their controversy. Please suggest what you would include.

But this should be in addition to the secondaries, not instead of them.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 01:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless you are prepared to present the controversial secondary studies with in-text attributuon, rather then in Wikivoice, I don't see how you have any path forward that respects WP:NPOV, which is a core policy. Newimpartial (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Are you suggesting I put into the page the following?

A 2016 review of 10 [12] prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found [13] desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally.

I have put in the other secondary as someone might claim counting to 10 is OR. I don't agree that the secondaries are controversial, but if we are both ok with this text, then our agreement on that issue is not necessary. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 02:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I support this per your explanation above. I was going to suggest roughly along the same lines: We cover the two secondaries, the Temple-Newhook rebuttal, and the two rebuttals to Temple-Newhook, treating each paper with roughly equal WP:WEIGHT in terms of detail/length of text devoted to it, and each one with WP:In-text attribution. I see no other way to satisfy NPOV and MEDRS. This proposal is an important step in that direction. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not able to speak for anyone else, but I have no objection to this proposed addition. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Good to hear we are converging. @Newimpartial:, do you mean the proposed addition I have suggested or the one that Crossroads has described, and if the latter, (1) are you ok with the part I have suggested and (2) do you have a suggestion for the part I have not included, the "the Temple-Newhook rebuttal, and the two rebuttals to Temple-Newhook, treating each paper with roughly equal WP:WEIGHT in terms of detail/length of text devoted to it"? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 18:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I was agreeing with the proposed addition you set out, Jdbrook. I do not agree with the remainder of Crossroads's proposal, which amounts to cutting back on the mainstream position adopted by most professional societies and governmental authorities, and adding repetitive denials by the authors of one of the currently included primary studies/the 2016 secondary review.

My suggestion is that you or I paste here a draft for the whole passage, including both your new text and a tweaked version of the portion of the existing text that sets out the differences of opinion on the matter, and work from there towards consensus on Talk before changing the article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:, @Crossroads:, thank you. Below is what is currently in the page, plus the proposed added sentence, and then a proposed replacement. I have added the next paragraph in, as it circles back to saying that the desistance rates might be quoted as too high, a point that is emphasized in 3 sentences currently in this section.

Desistance rates among young children may be higher. Of children referred to gender clinics for either gender dysphoria or gender non-conformity, a 2008 study found 61% desisted from their gender incongruence or nonconformity before reaching the age of 29,[14] and a 2013 study found 63% desisted before age 20.[15] However, the study (by Steensma et al.) was criticized for its methodology; 28 of the 127 children did not respond to a follow-up, and were classified as desistors. In addition, all the children in the persistence group had previously received a full diagnosis for gender identity disorder, whereas half of the desistance group were initially designated as "subthreshold" for the diagnosis.[16]

A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17] Research prior to 2000 might report inflated numbers of desistance, as gender-nonconforming children without gender dysphoria might have been included in studies.[18]

A 2016 review of 10 [14] prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found [15] desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally.

One suggestion:

Reported desistance rates among young children are higher. A 2016 review of 10 [16] prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found [17] desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally. A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17]

I do not think the "may be" higher is useful. They are reported to be higher. Maybe just drop entirely, if that is better.

The rest of the the first paragraph, now omitted, described 2 of the earlier studies, and went into detail about shortcomings of one study. The omitted sentence from the second paragraph also talks about shortcomings, and if one starts talking about shortcomings of studies, it seems for NPOV the responses to those criticisms should also be included. And if one specific study is mentioned, it seems it should be a more recent one, as the analysis there takes earlier concerns into account, rather than older ones and their criticisms. Maybe there is a possible sentence about things one worries about in these measurements and ways people say they have mitigated them would serve the same purpose, to say where disagreements are? What do you think? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 13:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see how the text can do without the following, which I would insert before "A 2019 clinical assessment": Research prior to 2000 might report inflated numbers of desistance, as gender-nonconforming children without gender dysphoria might have been included in studies.[18] This aspect is dropped without replacement by your current proposal; I am unaware of any "rebuttal" to this point specifically, but if there is one, it could be added (with appropriate citation) at the end of that sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Jdbrook, this looks good. Thanks for your work on this. The sentence suggested by Newimpartial above me looks fine as far as I know. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, on what basis in terms of sources do you say that Temple-Newhook et al is in line with the "mainstream position adopted by most professional societies and governmental authorities" in a way that the other sources are not, and regarding detransition? You will need to be specific; this can't just be asserted. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This article, for example, seems to do a good job of documenting the mainstream professional position in Canada with respect to desistance. Newimpartial (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:, these papers are almost all by the same person, Temple Newhook. This is in part a repeat of the other rebutted paper by her. This paper is a "Call for refocus on the health of trans and gender-diverse children", that is, she is trying to convince people to do this. This is a disagreement in primaries, between her and the others in the field, the latter being long time experts including an author of the classic Dutch Protocol.

As far as the gender non-conforming kids being included, the Singh et al 2021 paper has a detailed discussion of threshold and subthreshold populations for their study and some of the others, addressing this question. Saying some of the people were essentially included by mistake means reader doen't know if it is 5% or 80%, while the people in the field do at least know who was threshold and subthreshold. And they have a discussion of how much they think this impacts the results. It might be hard to summarize succinctly but I can try. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I am aware that Temple Newhook has authored more than one paper that I have referred to in this discission; as her views represent the mainstream of professional opinion in Canada, however, it seems DUE to include attributed comments from that perspective, when relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Temple-Newhook and perennial co-authors are not a reliable source for the claim that Temple-Newhook's views are the mainstream, in Canada or anywhere else. WP:RS for a claim have to be independent, not self-serving. Canada is just one country of many; certainly no reason to cherry-pick it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Temple-Newhook is a coinvestigator but not a principal researcher within the Trans youth Can research project - that situates her views as much within the Canadian mainstream as anything could. I am not cherry-picking Canadian scholarship; I am simply pointing out that, contrary to Jdbrook's assertion that Temple-Newhook's views have been "refuted", they actually reflect established professional practice within one G-7 country, at least. Newimpartial (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Temple-Newhook being one of many researchers on that project about "youth referred for blockers or hormones" does not mean that her detailed views on detransition and studies thereof as of 2018 hold some privileged status in Canada. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you've read the multiple papers on transgender youth and desistance co-authored by Temple-Newhook with other researchers from that project, or the comments made by its principal researchers in reply to criticisms of Temple-Newhook's work, but that body of commentary does indeed show that her detailed views on detransition and studies thereof as of 2018 hold some privileged status in Canada, at least in the sense that they reflect the mainstream of opinion among Canadian practitioners in the field, as well as Canada's professional bodies and funding agencies. Newimpartial (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, about this proposal:

Reported desistance rates among young children are higher. A 2016 review of 10 [13] prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found [14] desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally. A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17]

Would it be good to start with these replacing the two paragraphs for now with this, and then put in the other parts as people find agreement on that? This would replace both paragraphs, as the rest of the comments are listing studies and then criticizing them. The second is a primary, but there are no secondaries that I know of about adolescent emerging gender dysphoria.

What are the other sentences that people are thinking would be appropriate? I am finding the Temple-Newhook paper difficult to summarize, in part because it seems she is questioning whether desistance should be measured at all. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 00:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think if the Temple-Newhook stuff gets removed again you'll just be reverted entirely. I would leave that stuff alone for now and get this up there. After that, then you could write up a way to cover the rebuttals to Temple-Newhook and add that, because again, that's less controversial. Then at the end we can look for a way to combine together the two separate coverages of Temple-Newhook into one. That would be my strategy to get some progress made. Thanks for working on this. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Crossroads on this. Add text, replace primary with secondary sources within one perspective, but don't replace appropriately-cited material you disagree with, with material that corroborates the position you have already decided is correct. That is not the way BALANCE and NPOV work. Newimpartial (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. @Crossroads:,@Newimpartial:, to confirm, the agreement is to delete:

Desistance rates among young children may be higher. Of children referred to gender clinics for either gender dysphoria or gender non-conformity, a 2008 study found 61% desisted from their gender incongruence or nonconformity before reaching the age of 29,[14] and a 2013 study found 63% desisted before age 20.[15] However, the study (by Steensma et al.) was criticized for its methodology; 28 of the 127 children did not respond to a follow-up, and were classified as desistors. In addition, all the children in the persistence group had previously received a full diagnosis for gender identity disorder, whereas half of the desistance group were initially designated as "subthreshold" for the diagnosis.[16]

A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17] Research prior to 2000 might report inflated numbers of desistance, as gender-nonconforming children without gender dysphoria might have been included in studies.[18]

And to insert:

Reported desistance rates among young children are higher. A 2016 review of 10 [18] prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found [19] desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally. A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17]

If I misunderstood, please advise. If not, either you or I can now do this. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 16:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you have misunderstood; do not do this. If you are going to replace the primary with the secondary, also please replace the criticism of the primary with equivalent criticism of the secondary. Crossroads, as I understood it, was proposing to leave the current pattern of of Steensma first and Temple-Newhook second, while allowing the possibility that you would add rebuttals of Temple-Newhook at a later date.

TL; DR: the debate doesn't magically go away because "one side" publishes a controversial secondary study. Let's not pretend otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Close, but you're going to have to leave both bits cited to Temple-Newhook alone for now, including the one in this quote. Don't remove or replace them. I think there's a discussion to be had about WEIGHT of those but this isn't the time and touching it is holding up all progress, as you see here. Please leave that part alone; I suggest focusing next on adding the rebuttals to Temple-Newhook after this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I'll try again and I'm glad I asked. Thank you. Here is a try. Also, I have changed the first sentence from "might be" to "reported".

Desistance rates reported among young children are higher. Of children referred to gender clinics for either gender dysphoria or gender non-conformity, a 2008 study found 61% desisted from their gender incongruence or nonconformity before reaching the age of 29,[14] and a 2013 study found 63% desisted before age 20.[15] However, the study (by Steensma et al.) was criticized for its methodology; 28 of the 127 children did not respond to a follow-up, and were classified as desistors. In addition, all the children in the persistence group had previously received a full diagnosis for gender identity disorder, whereas half of the desistance group were initially designated as "subthreshold" for the diagnosis.[16] A 2016 review of 10 [13] prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found [14] desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally. A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17]

This leaves in the Steensma, the criticism of Steensma, and leaves out the rebuttals to the criticism of Steensma (all of which are primaries). Thanks. Jdbrook talk 22:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Better, but isn't the review article meant to replace the 2008 and 2013 single studies? I get that leaving in the Temple-Newhook stuff unchanged isn't ideal but it's the best strategy now. We'll circle back around to it before long. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed, I thought the secondary reviews were to replace the primary studies. Here is another try.

Desistance rates reported among young children are higher. A study (by Steensma et al.[ref]) was criticized for its methodology; 28 of the 127 children did not respond to a follow-up, and were classified as desistors. In addition, all the children in the study's persistence group had previously received a full diagnosis for gender identity disorder, whereas half of the desistance group were initially designated as "subthreshold" for the diagnosis.[16] A 2016 review of 10 [13] prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found [14] desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally. A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17]

I changed the wording at the beginning of the first Temple Newhook sentence, and added "study's" in the second sentence, as the primary being criticized by the Temple Newhook primary is now gone. It seems we do not yet agree on how to treat the rebuttals/research developments addressing the Temple Newhook primary.

However, it does seem that we might all agree on the above text, though, which will make the page more accurate. @Newimpartial: can you please confirm this text insertion? And @Crossroads: I am understanding that you are ok with the above, but if I am wrong, please let me know? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 13:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

While this is more balanced than the earlier proposal, I think it would be more helpful for readers to include critique of the 2016 review, rather than critique of the 2013 primary study (albeit by the same authors) cited in the review. I will try to come up with proposed text later today. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion for a paragraph more helpful for our readers is as follows:

Studies have reported higher rates of desistance among young children. A 2016 review of 10 [13] prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found [14] desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally. However, the methodology for many of these studies been criticized, particularly for counting as "desistance" cases where the child would never have been diagnosed with gender dyphoria based on current criteria, established in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 2013.[16] A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17]

For reference 16, I would propose the following quote to be added: Due to such shifting diagnostic categories and inclusion criteria over time, these studies included children who, by current DSM-5 standards, would not likely have been categorized as transgender (i.e., they would not meet the criteria for gender dysphoria) and therefore, it is not surprising that they would not iden- tify as transgender at follow-up. Current criteria require identification with a gender other than what was assigned at birth, which was not a necessity in prior versions of the diagnosis. The source goes in to add detail, but I think thickening main point that needs to be made. Newimpartial (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I support this. I would tweak it by moving the mid-sentence references to the end of the sentence as is typically done (this applies to Jdbrook's version as well). Crossroads ^-talk- 03:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Does the following work? Apologies if either of you think I am misquoting you. I changed identifying at follow-up, it seemed it should be identifying for both or categorized for both. So now it says they weren't categorized initially and so not surprisingly would not be categorized (rather than identifying) at follow up.

Studies have reported higher rates of desistance among young children. A 2016 review of 10 prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally[13,14]. There were some methodological criticisms. In particular, due to shifting diagnostic categories and inclusion criteria over time, many of these studies included children who, by current DSM-5 standards, would not likely have been categorized as transgender initially (i.e., they would not meet the criteria for gender dysphoria) and therefore, it is not surprising that they would not be categorized as transgender at follow-up. Current criteria require identification with a gender other than what was assigned at birth, which was not a necessity in prior versions of the diagnosis.[16]

A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17]

I didn't include all the sentences as it seemed that otherwise we had side by side:

However, the methodology for many of these studies been criticized, particularly for counting as "desistance" cases where the child would never have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria based on current criteria, established in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 2013.[16] Due to such shifting diagnostic categories and inclusion criteria over time, these studies included children who, by current DSM-5 standards, would not likely have been categorized as transgender (i.e., they would not meet the criteria for gender dysphoria) and therefore, it is not surprising that they would not identify as transgender at follow-up. Current criteria require identification with a gender other than what was assigned at birth, which was not a necessity in prior versions of the diagnosis.

which seems redundant to me. What do you think? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 13:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my proposal: my second (direct) quoted passage is to be inserted in ref 16 in the "quote" field - it would be COPYVIO to place it in article text without quotation marks. So my proposal for the article text is simply:

Studies have reported higher rates of desistance among young children. A 2016 review of 10 [13] prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence found [14] desistance rates ranging from 98% to 61%, with evidence suggesting that they might be less than 85% more generally. However, the methodology for many of these studies been criticized, particularly for counting as "desistance" cases where the child would never have been diagnosed with gender dyphoria based on current criteria, established in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 2013.[16] A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent-emerging gender dysphoria either ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their assigned sex at birth within an eighteen-month period.[17]

I believe this is what Crossroads agreed to above, so I hope this helps you, Jd! Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this works! Putting [13] and [14], the citations, at the end of the sentence as Crossroads suggested would work fine, too. Thank you. Jdbrook talk 19:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads:, I believe Newimpartial and I are ok with this and that you are also, so I would like to add it if everyone is good with it (or someone else can, of course). Thanks. Jdbrook talk 20:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are more than cleared to make the edit. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Harassment sentence

The second part of this sentence is not backed up by any of the quotes: Some detransitioners say they have been harassed by activists who view detransition as a political threat to trans rights. Going over the provided quotes:

• Carey says in the film. For her, detransitioning has resulted in the most harassment she has ever faced in her life. One of the only two that mentions harassment. It makes no mention of its source, nor does it speculate as to the motivations.
• This has ignited a contentious debate both in and outside the trans community, with various sides accusing each other of bigotry, harassment, censorship, and damaging the fight for trans rights. No specific mention of who is accusing who; also a plain misuse of the source, in that the text in our article presented it as just one specific side accusing another specific side of harassment, which is the opposite of what the source says.
• "[Other messages received] were from clinicians and detransitioners, thanking me for presenting a perspective they felt so many were scared to voice. No mention of harassment.
• "[T]he trans community does our best to pretend that retransitioning never happens ... trans people who have retransitioned are often treated as outcasts, as aberrations or as an embarrassment to our community's goals. They are assumed to be failures, traitors to the cause of trans liberation." No mention of harassment.

My reading is that the third one is being presented in an effort to WP:SYNTH up the sentence in question, but it's plainly improper synthesis - none of these quotes say anything approximating what they're being cited for here. Note that none of them mention "activists" in this context at all; at a glance, that part appears to be purely invented. --Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Noticed this too and agree with you. Rab V (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking again at the quotes, it's evident that two central points exist across the quotes - not just 'harassment' per se but, also, that some feel that detransition damages the fight for trans rights. Two sources, one of whom is non-binary activist Jacob Tobia (i.e. obviously someone who isn't going to misrepresent that), state that as a generality. Hence, I've reworded it and split the referencing: Detransitioners say they have been harassed,[42][43] and that they have been treated as a political threat to transgender rights.[43][44] No more connection is being made now than what the sources say (note that one does explicitly treat both in the same sentence, but separated, just as this does). Crossroads ^-talk- 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I do kind of see what y’all are saying. The sources don’t directly say they are being harassed by activists but they do say they have experienced harassment.

Also I will say this too, I have seen some news sources say that the narrative around the issue is distorted.CycoMa (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The 2 separate phrases by Crossroads seem to accurately summarize the statements. Jdbrook talk 04:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the detransiton study

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We should come to a consensus on whether or not this study should be excluded or not. Because I don’t want this to turn into a edit war.

Maybe a vote would do?CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would like to add sentence about variations in times to detransition

Hi all. One of the reasons detransition studies are hard to do is that the time to regret or detransition can be long. This may be useful to point out? Here is a suggested insertion:

Studies of different populations have found different (average or median) elapsed times until detransition or regret: 4.71 years on average to detransition since social and/or hormonal transition[Vandenbussche 2021], 130 months on average to regret (but not necessarily detransition) from start of hormonal therapy [ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29463477/ Wiepjes 2018], and 8 years median time lag before applying for a name reversal, for those with surgery [Dhejne et al 2014].

What do people think? Vandenbussche and Dhejne et al are already referenced, so I didn't give the links for those, and could just reuse those citations. (Just to note, although Wiepjes et al (2018) give a detransitioner number, they caution that their detransitioner number may be unreliable, noting they didn't have the 130 months time frame for everyone, and that 36% of the people they were treating were lost to follow-up, puting a large uncertainty in their number.) Thanks. Jdbrook talk 22:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be against relying even more on primary sources, especially since this information is not that important to the article. Rab V (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

What does and 8 years median time lag before applying for a name reversal, for those with surgery even mean? --Equivamp - talk 22:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. @Equivamp: In Dhejne et al 2014 the exact wording is "the median time lag until applying for a reversal was 8 years." This is in their paragraph about the regret rate. They measured the regret rate by counting those who asked to reverse their legal name changes after surgery (so it is perhaps lower limit estimate on regret rate). I should perhaps fix the sentence so it is not a copyright violation, thank you for noting that. Here is a suggestion. I think I am reading what the 8 years refers to correctly, but maybe there is another reading of it.

Studies of different populations have found different (average or median) elapsed times until detransition or regret: 4.71 years on average to detransition since social and/or hormonal transition[Vandenbussche 2021], 130 months on average to regret (but not necessarily detransition) from start of hormonal therapy [ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29463477/ Wiepjes 2018], and a median of 8 years between changing legal gender and requesting to change it back, for those with surgery [Dhejne et al 2014].

@RabV: it is adding new relevant information: that the time to detransition is currently not well measured. In addition, it is relevant for detransitioner/regret studies as it shows that many years, although it is not clear how many (it perhaps depends on the transition protocol), are needed before many of detransitions will occur. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 01:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The changing of legal name and legal gender are not the same thing, they shouldn't be conflated. --Equivamp - talk 02:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Something along these lines could be added, but it would probably be better to attribute it a bit more as findings of a study; e.g. 'a 20XX study found that...' Regarding legal name and legal gender, it would be important to carefully follow the interpretation of the study. If the authors explain in other text they use a name change as proxy for a gender change, then so can we, but otherwise it would be necessary to stick to the claim they make or drop that one. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, @Crossroads:,@Equivamp:, @RabV:. Thank you for all the suggestions and questions.

Going back to the exact quotation in the 2014 paper, the reversal is in fact specifically for gender, and not for name. I made a mistake and am sorry. Thank you all for focusing on that. So my second suggestion above, not the first, is accurate. Name changes are mentioned, but reversal is always mentioned in terms of gender or sex, e.g., "reversal to the original sex (regret applications)." or "The regret rate defined as application for reversal of the legal gender status...".

However, as the regret rate is measured from first application, perhaps the median reversal time is also measured from that first application: "The regret rate is defined as the number of sex reassigned individuals at the time period when they did their first application that will later apply for reversal to the original sex, compared to the total number of individuals who did their first application at that time period and received a new legal gender." It seems first application was not always for legal gender change: "Until 1990, it was common with a two-step procedure where the initial application was for name change and sterilization." I had initially read that 8 years before requesting a reversal meant that it was 8 years from gender change to reversal of gender change, but given the regret rate definition, the other meaning is perhaps also allowed.

So, making the quotations inline as suggested, perhaps the following accurately describes the results:

Studies of different populations have found different (average or median) elapsed times until detransition or regret: a 2021 study [Vandenbussche] found an average of 4.71 years of transition (counting both social and medical) before detransition, a 2018 study Wiepjes 2018 found 130 months on average to regret (but not necessarily detransition) from start of hormonal therapy, and a 2014 study of those who had surgery [Dhejne et al 2014] found a median of 8 years before requesting a reversal of legal gender status.

quotations to go in references:

Vandenbussche: "The average duration of transition of the respondents (including both social and medical transition) was 4.71 years (4.55 for females; 6.37 for males) (SD = 3.55)."

Wiepjes 2018: "In addition, in our population the average time to regret was 130 months, so it might be too early to examine regret rates in people who started with HT in the past 10 years."

Dhejne 2014 :"The regret rate defined as application for reversal of the legal gender status"[..] "the median time lag until applying for a reversal was 8 years. "

With the exact quotations in the references, it will be clearer exactly what the studies have found. Thank you everyone for your help. Jdbrook talk 00:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Besides being another low quality primary source, this is definitely not WP:DUE. Rab V (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rab V: Can you please explain what you think is the issue with WP:DUE for reporting the amount of time to detransition found in several studies?

Also, what is the basis for saying these are low quality sources? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 03:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The article gives undue depth of weight and prominence in the article to studies that are not at all prominent for this topic and this would only add to that problem. Rab V (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rab V: All 3 studies are published in refereed journals and listed in PubMed. The Dhejne et al 2014 study is one of the classic papers in the field, in part because it is in Sweden which keeps thorough records of medical treatment.

The Wiepjes et al 2018 paper is a cohort study of the main clinic in the Netherlands, which treats 95% of the patients in that country.

The Vandenbussche 2021 survey does not claim to be representative. Maybe there is a correlation between people with other times to detransition and survey participation, so perhaps that should be dropped, or that result can be listed along with the qualifying that it is not shown to be representative.

What other studies would you suggest including which report time to detransition? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 13:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Being in pubmed does not mean a source is strong by MEDRS standards. I wouldn't include this information unless secondary sources 1) establishes it is due and what prominence it deserves and 2) secondary sources give a sense which sources are interesting. Else we are doing our own original analysis on how to judge primary sources and frankly I think that only leads to unprofessional bias. I have seen you remove a primary source of a particular point of view and fight for days over others for example without clear reasoning on why the removal. Rab V (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rab V: I don't see where your criterion is coming from: that inclusion of time to detransition, on a page on detransition, is only warranted when "secondary sources 1) establishes it is due and what prominence it deserves and 2) secondary sources give a sense which sources are interesting."

More specifically, why is giving the amount of time to detransition an issue with DUE?

PubMed is suggested by WP:MEDRS as a good source for references, which is why I mentioned these primaries are found in there. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 00:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that including timing for detransition is part of answering questions one might reasonably ask: who, what, when, where, why (although I am not sure if "where" works in this context). Thanks. Jdbrook talk 01:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In an article already with primary sources, excluding some based on personal opinion (e.g. Rab V's arguments) is POV. WP:MEDDATE (part of MEDRS) allows for flexibility in areas where few reviews are being published, which certainly applies here. This can be added. I would change 130 months to 10 years and 10 months for reader clarity, which is permissible per WP:CALC. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that this can be added. Nothing said justifies that this is due or such an exceptional primary source we should add it to an article already with warnings on it for overreliance on primary sources. Rab V (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

PubMed is a good place to find references but not all references there are good. And 'answering questions one might reasonably ask' is a good criteria for including all kinds of trivia but wp is not a collection of trivia, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you can't find any independent secondary sources that mention these studies or even this question it is certainly interesting trivia but not WP:DUE. Rab V (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also MEDDATE is about the need to keep an article up to date and supplanting old sources with newer reviews. When it says "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published" the instructions it refers to are instructions on removing old sources. It has nothing to do with this case. Rab V (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing why information about when detransition occurs is not relevant, on a page about detransition. The page lists estimates of how many (they seem to all be primaries, the two secondaries are for desistance) and why (all seem to be primaries).

The Dhejne et al 2014 article is already on the page for "how many." As it concerns timing of regret where regret is measured by legal gender change after surgeries, the Wiepjes et al 2018 article about detransition time after commencing hormone therapy is additional information. The Wiepjes et al paper includes as authors many of the leaders in the field, and is a large cohort study from the clinic which treats more than 95% of the transgender people in the Netherlands. It as well is peer reviewed and in PubMed. It seems to be a high quality primary for these reasons. The Vandenbussche source is also a primary which is peer reviewed and in PubMed, and I have no reason to believe it is not high quality as well, but as its sampling is different than the other two studies, perhaps the times to detransition it reports are less generalizable. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 04:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not relevant because it's a question only discussed in a couple primary sources. What relevance means for wp is discussed in WP:DUE. Rab V (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What in WP:DUE is leading you to conclude that when detransition occurs is not appropriate for this page? I don't see that a point of view is being unrepresented or being over represented with this information, but maybe there is some other aspect of WP:DUE to which you are referring? I do not know of sources that say that when detransition occurs is not relevant, and thus that these are being given undue weight in comparison to them.

But perhaps that is not what you meant. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 01:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, wondering if concerns have been dealt with sufficiently? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 03:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE states: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

However, the measured times to detransition are not a viewpoint, and I do not see any papers saying this is not relevant. The Dhejne et al 2014 study already on the page gives one of the time measurements I am suggesting to include. There are already detransition times listed on the page in the "Individual accounts" section, which gives only a few sentences for each person (aside from Keira Bell). Three of the six people listed have the amount of the time they were transitioned given explicitly, it is implicit for Penner, and the Heyer USA today article I found (one is mentioned but not linked, the link for him seems to be for all of his works) has it in the title. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 13:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, interested in confirming if (some variant of) the suggestion above is ok to add, or whether there are more concerns. I think the WP:DUE issue has been now addressed as this aspect (time to detransition) is already considered relevant both elsewhere in the page and by an article already on the page. The suggested addition would be:

Studies of different populations have found different (average or median) elapsed times until detransition or regret: a 2021 study [Vandenbussche] found an average of 4.71 years of transition (counting both social and medical) before detransition, a 2018 study Wiepjes 2018 found 130 months on average to regret (but not necessarily detransition) from start of hormonal therapy, and a 2014 study of those who had surgery [Dhejne et al 2014] found a median of 8 years before requesting a reversal of legal gender status.

quotations to go in references:

Vandenbussche: "The average duration of transition of the respondents (including both social and medical transition) was 4.71 years (4.55 for females; 6.37 for males) (SD = 3.55)."

Wiepjes 2018: "In addition, in our population the average time to regret was 130 months, so it might be too early to examine regret rates in people who started with HT in the past 10 years."

Dhejne 2014 :"The regret rate defined as application for reversal of the legal gender status"[..] "the median time lag until applying for a reversal was 8 years. "

Another possibility is to remove the part:"a 2021 study [Vandenbussche] found an average of 4.71 years of transition (counting both social and medical) before detransition," as the selection of this sample was not as easy to characterize as the other two. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 02:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly given the lack of objection more recently it would probably have been fine to add. If there is a new objection after then we can discuss some more and see. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll note this discussion in the posting in case more concerns are raised. Jdbrook talk 03:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I changed the wording slightly in the inserted text, as the earlier suggested wording seemed that it could be read as implying that everyone detransitioned. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 03:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Irreversible Damage

Someone should add something about Abigail Shrier's book, Irreversible Damage. There is a wiki article on the book but no reference here. Clearly ought to be. The book is controversial but well-documented and worth a mention, for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.52.54 (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The book is not really about detransition but about the idea of gender dysphoria as a social contagion amongst girls. If you are aware of sources that discuss the book specifically with regards to the topic of detransition, then inclusion may be warranted. --Equivamp - talk 01:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Study of 27,715 TGD participants

<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33794108/<ref>

A 2021 study conducted by a combined team from Stanford and Harvard Medical schools found a 13.1% detransition rate with 82.5% of detransitioners endorsing at least one external driving factor, including pressure from family, non-affirming schools, treat of violence and societal stigma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbernards (talk • contribs)

Please note that that study uses data from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, which collected responses only from people who identified as trans*/gender-variant at the time of the survey. (The report is available here: see the disqualification questions in Appendix B and the "Data Cleaning" section in Appendix C). Detransition#Transitioning after detransitioning already contains some information about the USTS, though more could be added. gnu57 19:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this reference is already included under "Reasons" in reference 27? That reference uses the USTS sample. I have just corrected the year. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 23:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Jack Turban source

I changed the wording regarding the "popularity" of the word detransition to take it out of Wiki voice. In the same sentence the source makes the (imo, bizarre) claim that the word transition has "largely fallen out of favor" because it implies that "gender identity is contingent upon gender affirmation processes". It cites a source for this claim which does say that "gender affirmation" is preferred over "transition", but does not give an explanation, does not list it on its table of "outdated and insensitive" terms, and does not use the word "detransition" at all. It appears this idea originates entirely in the Jack Turban source, and doesn't seem to be commonly accepted at all. --Equivamp - talk 05:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

suggested sentence describing new detransitioner study

Hi all, here is a suggested description of a new detransitioner study.

In a 2021 study of 237 detransitioners and their needs, the most prevalent reasons to detransition were the realization that gender dysphoria was related to other issues (70%), health concerns (for 62%), and that transitioning didn’t help their gender dysphoria (50%).[ref]

The citation would be to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33929297/ “The most common reported reason for detransitioning was realized that my gender dysphoria was related to other issues (70%). The second one was health concerns (62%), followed by transition did not help my dysphoria (50%), found alternatives to deal with my dysphoria (45%), unhappy with the social changes (44%), and change in political views (43%). At the very bottom of the list are: lack of support from social surroundings (13%), financial concerns (12%) and discrimination (10%) (see Figure 1).”

Improvements, suggestions welcome. For instance, maybe "online survey" rather than survey? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 23:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to add. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a primary source about an online survey. Would not add it to the article. Rab V (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Rab V There aren't many sources on this page that aren't primary. Online does not mean low quality, it perhaps is what allowed the study to have participants from several countries (Australia, Canada and the US, plus a few other places). It is peer reviewed and indexed in PubMed, a Wikipedia recommended source for finding medical articles. It adds prevalence of detransition reasons for the group studied. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 00:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"There aren't many sources on this page that aren't primary." Good reason not to double down on even more primary sources; they should be used sparingly at best and not really at all for controversial topics like this. And this kind of online survey is by no means a gold standard sociological study. It is prone to over representation of subpopulations and self selection bias. Rab V (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It should probably note that it surveyed members of online detrans communities specifically. --Equivamp - talk 22:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rab V: There are few studies with large samples of detransitioners who identify as such (this might be the largest), and this gives their reasons for detransitioning, which is important information. It is primary, as are most of the sources in this field, because this is a young area of research. Again, it is, however, published in the peer reviewed medical literature and indexed in PubMed. I agree that it is not shown to be gold standard, so it is important to accurately characterize the limitations. Perhaps adding the recruitment information, as below, would better address the sampling issue you are concerned about?

@Equivamp: would the wording "In a 2021 study involving 237 participants " -> "In a 2021 study with 237 participants, recruited via online detransitioner communities," better characterize the study?

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 14:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an exploratory study based on an online survey of a specific online community. As such per MEDRS its not appropriate to use, especially since some secondary review sources like WPATH's SOC discuss the same question. Rab V (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Rab V did you even check where that survey was posted at?

If you check it was posted to [this] a peer reviewed site.CycoMa (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure it’s not a medical source, I wouldn’t disagree with that but if something was posted to a peer reviewed cite on LGBT issues then I don’t see any issues with it.CycoMa (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Not to speak for Rab V, but the issue is not whether it's peer-reviewed (which is not, as far as I can tell, being debated) but whether it meets the standards for WP:MEDRS. As a WP:PRIMARY source, it doesn't, but there's been a significant push recently to add more and more on the basis that there's a lot of it here already. --Equivamp - talk 00:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp I’m not entirely what makes your think it’s not peer reviewed. Did I misread it or something?CycoMa (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You misread my comment. --Equivamp - talk 00:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay, but anyway I understand the criticism of it not being a medical source. But keep in mind this topic isn’t exclusive a medical topic.

It’s also a sociological and political one. So even if it fails at being a medical source it doesn’t fail at being a sociological source.CycoMa (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a medical source being used to cite medical information. --Equivamp - talk 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp did you mistype that or is that what you are saying?CycoMa (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a medical topic and a medical source. That's why the source is on pubmed, a resource for medical sources. Rab V (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding this, Equivamp, in your 22:29, 29 May 2021 comment, you seemed to be okay with adding it, as long as it mentioned how the participants were recruited, which was done. Can you clarify your position? Rab V, you can't WP:FILIBUSTER it. [20][21] Prior to those reverts, me, CycoMa, and Jdbrook were all in favor of inclusion. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Re filibuster; WP consensus does not work by majority rule. In this case there is a site wide consensus against using primary sources for medical information per WP:MEDRS. Adding more and more primary sources when secondary sources discuss this topic seems a clear violation of that consensus. Rab V (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is about reasons for detransition. @Rab V: In the "Reasons" section, what secondary sources are you seeing which supersede this reference? There are primaries which aren't refereed in there, it seems this source would be at least as appropriate as those, if not more so. Also, @Equivamp: apologies, as Crossroads alluded, I was under the impression that I had addressed your concern about specifying how the survey was done. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 00:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said in a different section, my position on this Wikipedia article is to be a bit more flexible because WP:MEDDATE's clause applies about this being an area with few reviews being published. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

My position is that it needs better rationale for inclusion than "it was posted to pubmed so it's fine", per the edit I reverted. I understand that this article will require a certain extent of relaxation of guidelines about primary sources. --Equivamp - talk 08:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Equivamp yeah about the whole Pubmed thing yeah Pubmed doesn’t instantly mean a source is reliable.

I have seen some questionable sources on Pubmed at times.

But anyway the source was published to a peer review source.CycoMa (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, for the second time, nobody is discussing whether or not the source is peer-reviewed. --Equivamp - talk 08:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Equviamp but does it really fit the definition of primary source? And even if it is a primary source does it count as good or bad primary source? A good source can still be primary.CycoMa (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's really a primary source. According to WP:MEDASSESS, surveys are somewhat low in quality rank among primary sources. But as I said, this article will depend on inclusion of primary sources to a degree. I probably would not have removed the source if your edit hadn't hinged on an apparent misunderstanding of the topic at hand. --Equivamp - talk 09:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Just circling back to the comment about WP:MEDDATE; MEDDATE is about keeping an article up to date with newer reviews and removing old reviews. That isn't what we are doing here so it's not relevant to bring up. It does not counter MEDRS's restrictions around basing articles off primary sources, it only says when secondary sources aren't published often we can loosen the restrictions within MEDDATE. Rab V (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also to show why using primary sources in the way suggested is a bad idea, here is a primary source that comes to opposite conclusions to the source jdbrooks suggests adding and is of similar quality. Rab V (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Rab V please understand the context of the source that was cited. It was merely a survey from a detransition group. So I don’t understand what presenting an source like that proves.CycoMa (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It shows study design can lead to incredibly different results, which is one reason MEDRS has strong restrictions around using primary sources. Choosing one primary source vs another one can paint completely different stories even in this case. Rab V (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rab V: Thank you for bringing up this very important point. These papers discuss two very different populations of detransitioners. Vandenbussche explicitly discusses this: "To date there has been little agreement on a definition of the word “detransition.” As explained by Expósito-Campos (2021), this term has been used interchangeably to refer to what he perceives to be two distinctive situations: in the first, the detransitioning individual stops identifying as transgender; in the second, they do not."

The survey that you cite, by Turban et al, is entitled "Factors Leading to "Detransition" Among Transgender and Gender Diverse..." and the survey only included people who identified as such, i.e, the second situation. That is, these people continue to identify as transgender or gender diverse. Their reasons for "Detransition", quotation marks by the author, were indeed different than those in the Vandenbussche survey.

The survey by Vandenbussche, instead, includes only those "who identifies as a detransitioner. It is important to add this dimension, because the act of medical/social detransition can be performed by individuals who did not cease to identify as transgender and who do not identify as detransitioners or as members of the detrans community."

That is, Vandenbussche explicitly is looking at detransitioners who identify as detransitioned rather than as transgender, while Turban et al note "Because the USTS only surveyed currently TGD-identified people, our study does not offer insights into reasons for detransition in previously TGD-identified people who currently identify as cisgender." So for instance, Shupe, Bell and Heyer, Callahan, detransitioners listed later in the page, would not have qualified for the Turban et al survey but would have qualified for the Vandenbussche one.

Given this dual use of the word, it might be useful to quote both sources, saying who their populations were, as they are both PubMed, refereed, etc., and people might be interested in either or both of them. Perhaps these two sentences, in either order:

In a 2021 study with 237 detransitioners, recruited via online detransitioner communities and who no longer identify as transgender, the most prevalent reasons to detransition were the realization that gender dysphoria was related to other issues (70%), health concerns (for 62%), and that transitioning didn’t help their gender dysphoria (50%).

In a 2020 study of 3242 "detransitioners", recruited via community outreach organizations and who continue to identify as transgender or gender diverse, the vast majority said detransition was in part due to external factors, such as pressure from family, sexual assault, and nonaffirming school environments, another highly cited factor was "it was just too hard for me."

In the reference for Turban, the quotation above about excluding cisgender people could be quoted, as well as "The vast majority of participants reported detransition due at least in part to external factors,such as pressure from family, nonaffirming school environments, and sexual assault." and table 2 for "it was just too hard for me." (I am not sure if my quoting from their table 2 is considered original research.) The reference for Vandenbussche could include the quotation about identifying as detransitioners.

Both groups are detransitioners, but they are not the same group and their reasons are different, so I think listing both surveys in this or some other similar way would accurately represent the literature. (Again, they seem as high quality or higher, i.e., they are refereed, in the medical literature and in PubMed, than the other articles cited under "reasons" for detransition.) Thanks. Jdbrook talk 23:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate wanting to balance your source with the one I brought up but I am concerned that this leads to even more use of primary sources. It's easy to bog down this article with endless primary sources due to the paucity of secondary ones, but MEDRS seems clear they ought to be avoided. Rab V (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Rab V just gonna throw this out there primary sources can still be reliable.CycoMa (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Rab V Maybe I missed some, but I only see a couple of references on this page which aren't primary (i.e., the two secondaries about desistance for children). So it seems you are for some reason concluding these primary sources are less appropriate than other primary sources on the page, or on this topic in particular, which is why I was mentioning they were refereed medical journal articles and indexed in PubMed. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 03:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Jdbrook just because something is on Pubmed doesn’t mean it’s flawless. There are situations where there are articles published on there that contain some misinformation.

This isn’t me being some conspiracy theorist, I saw articles on there that were later retracted because the information presented in the articles were flawed. Like I saw this one article published regarding Gender Dysphoria where the writer claimed Gender Dysphoria was caused by entirely on environmental but it was later retracted.

Also if you research a lot on this topic you probably know about the rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy.CycoMa (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

CycoMaThanks, yes, I wasn't saying they were flawless because they are on PubMed, I agree that sources can be mistaken. I agree with you 100%.

I don't see a reason to think either of the two sources is wrong, it seemed to me that they surveyed different groups, both called detransitioners, and that for that reason the two groups have different reasons for detransition.

I am more trying to understand why these two primaries are not ok for inclusion, while other ones for the same topic are ok for inclusion. Some of the other articles quoted in this section are anecdotal examples, many of which are not in peer reviewed medical journals (Guardian articles, Atlantic article, one is unpublished) or have very few people in them. These two suggested references are surveys which had a clear method of selection (Danker et al is cited, but asked surgeons about encounters they had with detranstioners, I could not tell if the detransitioners these surgeons had encountered were all asked the same questions, or whether they were just looking through their own records, which might ask different things for different surgeons). I think it is also useful to point out that there are two kinds of detransitioners being discussed here, which are (conveniently) discussed by the two surveys. So I absolutely agree primaries can be wrong. I am wondering why other primaries are taking precedence over these two. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 04:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, trying to understand if we are more in agreement now about inclusion, given the points that we have all brought up and discussed. It seems that newspaper and magazine articles are not considered as reliable as sources compared to refereed medical articles [22], so I think one can argue that it is appropriate to include these two primaries, in the sentences above. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 03:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm also okay with the sentence as written above. Equivamp - talk 06:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Jdbrook talk 13:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment, based on the above discussion, and the one above it, it seems as though RabV's approach to primary sources is to treat existing ones as though they're exempt per grandfather clauses, while obstructing the addition of any newer ones because "there's already enough primary sources in the article" and the older ones get preference because they...made some kind of arbitrary magic cutoff, or something, I don't know.

Further, though, I want too point out to everyone that the particular subtopic in question in this discussion is not biomedical information and is therefore not subject to MEDRS (because MEDRS applies to biomedical information, and only biomedical information). Trying to extend MEDRS to all subtopics of a subject for some of which is subject to MEDRS was explicitly rejected as not helpful and possibly harmful to the quality and breadth of the encyclopaedia's content. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

After re-reading the link you provided and re-examining the source in question, I entirely disagree that this does not fall under MEDRS. --Equivamp - talk 05:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

While I would agree some of this article would fall under MEDRS, however some of it does not, and I would say this is only partially MEDRS. Specifically these quotations from the studies focus mainly on society and culture, although elements like "not helping with dysphoria" as a reason could be seen to fall under MEDRS as a cause of a condition and prognosis of medical interventions. I think to what degree MEDRS is applied here really depends on what exactly we quote and how we phrase it, but I lack the expertise to be able to comment further on that. 78.105.218.134 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tg242. Peer reviewers: Saharsolomon25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Critique of secondary accepted for publication in same journal that published secondary, how include?

Hi all, the review quoted here:

A 2021 meta-analysis of 27 studies found "there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after [gender-affirmation surgery]".[31]

had a letter to the editor recently published in the same journal, as a letter to the editor. That is, the journal which published the review considered these criticisms worth publishing (the letter was peer reviewed --added 22 Jan--accepted at the discretion of the editor). There are several significant criticisms, for example:

Many of the included studies had participants with follow-up periods of only 1 or 2 years postsurgical transition. None appear to have a long enough follow-up period to reliably identify regret. [..] These shorter studies only provide an estimated lower limit, as the large numbers of patients lost to follow-up add correspondingly large uncertainties to any quoted number.

I would like to add:

However, this review was challenged in the same journal for several reasons, including that none of the included studies “appear to have a long enough follow-up period to reliably identify regret.”[23]

There are other issues (only 5 of the 27 studies were not poor or fair quality, and "even these had loss to follow-up rates ranging from 28% to more than 40%"), but it seemed that mentioning all the criticisms would be overdoing it.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 14:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

better suggestion (there are many other criticisms, but maybe the large loss to follow up is important to point out):

However, this review was challenged in the same journal for several reasons, including that none of the included studies “appear to have a long enough follow-up period to reliably identify regret” and that even the small number which were not poor or fair quality had "loss to follow-up rates ranging from 28% to more than 40%." [24]

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 15:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The general sentiment of the community is that Letters-to-the-editor are poor or unacceptable sources, WP:RSOPINION at best: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

How do you know the letter was peer reviewed? The journal's Information for Authors states that they normally are not. --Equivamp - talk 02:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you @Equivamp:, I did not realize that in this journal, the letters to the editor are only reviewed by the editor rather than their usual 2-person peer review. (I had thought it was peer reviewed as it appeared in PubMed and because letters to the editor are peer reviewed in some other journals.) It appears for this journal that letters to the editor must be submitted formally and then get accepted in order to get published:

Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the PRS Global Open, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 3 months of an article’s publication.... Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but PRS Global Open may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.

That is, it seems that in all cases they do have to be accepted by the journal, but it is not clear how to find out whether any particular article went through the formal 2 referee peer review process, or if instead only one editor made the decision to accept or reject. This does not seem to be the same as opinion, as the journal which accepted the review article had to accept this letter, but it is also not the same as peer review. Thank you for the correction. (I have corrected my text above saying it was peer reviewed and tried to indicate that I modified it today rather than earlier, hopefully correctly.)

Acceptance by the editor of the journal seems more than plain opinion, and it seems that the shortcomings of the reported regret rates (large loss to follow up, above 5% normally is large enough to worry about the reliability of the results, I believe, and inadequate follow up time to measure regrets) are relevant for interpreting the paper. One suggestion in the page you pointed me to was to report it but not in Wikivoice?

Thanks for the explanation and pointers. Jdbrook talk 01:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The decision to publish was made by the Editor-in-Chief (the Editor). This is true for all LTEs published in this journal, including any peer-reviewed ones.

Publication of a letter should not be taken to mean it's endorsed by the editor, nor should it imply an equivalent scientific rigor to the original publication. LTEs are not held to the same academic standard because the constraints placed on them in terms of length, etc mean they would simply fail to meet them. Publication of the LTE simply means the editor is mediatting correspondence between the authors. --Equivamp - talk 03:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the "Individual accounts" section encyclopedic?

Hi! I feel that the individual accounts section is not the most encyclopedic. By over-using individual instances of detransition I believe it takes away from the detached, analytical approach WP should take when covering such a contentious, deeply personal topic. I'm not saying it should be removed, but certainly in its current state it is a detriment to the quality of the article. What are the community's thoughts on this? Do any of y'all have any suggestions on how the section could be improved? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's like news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipenswick (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the James Shupe Entry Of This Page:

To whom it may concern,

My Wikipedia page contains outdated information about my status. It is incorrect to state that I am a detransitioner or desister. My personal website contains a statement regarding this matter. I am requesting an edit be made to this page on my behalf. Suppose a member of the media or Wikipedia staff desires to confirm the authenticity of the information in my recent announcement. In that case, you can reach me by using the contact information on my website. Thank you for your attention in this matter.ElisaShupe (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

https://elisashupe.wordpress.com/2022/03/03/elisa-shupe-setting-the-record-straight-about-james-shupe/

ElisaShupe thanks for reaching out. I'm hesitant to change information on a living person based on information published on a blog or personal website. Please understand that this is from a genuine concern for impersonators affecting what Wikipedia says about people. Is there perhaps a more reliable source you could provide with information on your status? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz I am put in a difficult situation in this matter. Conservative news sources are not going to be willing to publish an updated article because of their desire to continue to use me in their present narrative, as a desister. The same goes for liberal media outlets. They too are most likely going to be unwilling to publish updated news about me because they don't want to draw attention to my negative past history and I'm far out of the news cycle. So not updating the article because my personal website is being deemed an unreliable source is not helpful to resolving this situation and many readers of my page are not going to venture into the Talk Page to learn accurate updated information about me.ElisaShupe (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

ElisaShupe I sympathize with your concerns. The content has been deleted entirely from this page, as myself and other editors don't think covering individual cases of detransition is encyclopedic. I'll see if I can get some more experienced editors to offer me advice on the James Shupe article. I can understand how hurt and vulnerable having incorrect information about you, and such personal information at that, published on Wikipedia can be. We'll do all we can to help :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Though the bulk of discussion on updating that article should happen at that article's talk page, a blog would be fine for primary statements by a BLP subject per WP:ABOUTSELF. My only concern at this stage would be that the blog in question only came into existence a few hours ago, and skirts kinda close to part 4 of ABOUTSELF. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to resolve that without also being respectful to your privacy and safety. I think we should continue this discussion at Talk:James Shupe. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:Firefangledfeathers, User talk:Newimpartial, User talk:Aquillion. Reason: Their familiarity with WP:BLP and WP:ABOUTSELF policies, and this topic area in general.. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can use the blog as a source unless we can confirm its authenticity. However, we can remove anything that is weakly-sourced entirely and say nothing at all until / unless we have better sources, given that this is a potential BLP issue. As I noted below, we're currently citing the Daily Signal on their bio, which we probably should not be doing either way. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Your Twitter account is linked in one of the stories about you and we can therefore be reasonably certain of its authenticity. Could you post there, and update your details there? That would probably be sufficient. The blog currently raises problems; WP:ABOUTSELF will allow us to use your own statements for simple biographical details like this as long as there is no reasonable doubt to their authenticity, but we can't be sure about the blog yet when it was created a short while ago and has no coverage - anyone could create a blog and Wikipedia account and claim to be whoever they want. OTOH the fact that the existing sources are mostly low-quality for WP:BLP stuff means that we can just omit you entirely to an extent until / unless better sources appear - citing the Daily Signal as the sole source for something BLP-sensitive (as we do on your your bio) seems to me to be unacceptable, say. But beyond that I would strongly suggest contacting any of the sources here, on the biographical article we have for you - which will have to be renamed if we can confirm your identity - or in a Google News search requesting corrections. Some of them seem like they might post an update; even one high-quality source updating would be enough to confirm everything. I would suggest contacting even the ones you don't think are likely to update, for two reasons. First, they might surprise you (there are legal and reputational reasons why they'd want to update even if they're unhappy to do so.) And second, from our perspective, if it is true that you contacted them and they refused to issue an update or retraction, and everything else checks out, then that might be something we'd have to consider when evaluating their reliability going forwards, since corrections and retractions are a requirement for reliable sources. Finally, you might also contact more trans- / LGBT-focused sources to cover the entire situation - for something like this, they could still be sufficient to verify your identity and story for bare-bones WP:BLP biographical detail purposes. Any secondary coverage that says "yes, this is this person's blog and they've said this" would help a great deal. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The Cass review

The Cass review in the UK, [25], may be a useful uptodate citation that research in this are remains limited. Bondegezou (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Many who detransition report...

The article says that Many who detransition report feeling a loss of support by their LGBT friends and family as well as harassment from other individuals. As far as I can tell, this was cited to only two sources. One was to a quote in an Atlantic documentary, describing only their own personal experiences, which obviously in no way supports "many" wording; the other is to an article from The Stranger, saying This has ignited a contentious debate both in and outside the trans community, with various sides accusing each other of bigotry, harassment, censorship, and damaging the fight for trans rights. The fact that the accusations were by "various sides" is obviously essential context - we cannot use it in a way that implies that only one side is accusing the other of harassment, when the source treats it as coming equally from all sides - but beyond that it does not reflect the "many" wording used here. It's also probably not due for the lead in the first place given that it's a single broad line in a piece from an alternative weekly. --Aquillion (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The harassment point in particular feels out of place in the lead. This isn't an article about a political debate, it's about an act of one's body. I say we should delete it. Snokalok (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The "loss of support" aspect seems to be cited to this study now, so I'm fine with changing it to "some", but not with removing it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Retransitioning?

I want to add a section about ex-detransitioners or retransitioners, possibly enough to be its own article. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 00:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding terminology, sometimes detransitioning is also called "retransitioning", which confuses matters. Regarding the article, I think more could be written in this article about ex-detransitioners (is there a better word?), but I don't think it's independently notable enough to receive its own article outside of this one. Endwise (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise what's the logic behind them being called "retransitioners"? They aren't repeating anything. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 07:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I think "retransition" is preferred by some detransitioners who prefer to describe their experience as a kind of continuing "journey" of self-discovery (i.e. that they've transitioned twice along their journey), as opposed to describing their experience as transitioning, realising they made a mistake, and then reversing their decision (i.e. "de"-transitioning). It's a confusing term to use though, because it sounds like you're talking about e.g. m->f->m->f rather than e.g. m->f->m, as I guess this conversation demonstrates. Endwise (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Replacement of source and updating of figure

This was a good edit by the IP and I propose to restore it. What it did was (while updating figures accordingly) replace this source, a 2014 New Yorker piece, with this 2021 scientific paper. By any reasonable standard, this is a much higher-quality source: it is both 7 years newer and in an expert-refereed journal rather than an article in a popular magazine by a non-expert. The original reversion was justified by simply linking WP:PRIMARY, but WP:PSTS states: A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. The source, when giving that figure, is being a secondary source by citing previous sources - at least as much of one as the New Yorker article and the sources cited under "ref name=detransitionestimates". Crossroads ^-talk- 05:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

For this specific claim: (quoting from the paper) Rates of detransitioning are unknown, with estimates ranging from less than 1% to 8%, the paper is a secondary source. It is their assessment of the range of estimates given in other research. So I agree it should be restored, it's certainly a much better secondary source than a news article. Endwise (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"As gender-nonconforming children without gender dysphoria were included in studies"

In Feb, TheTranarchist changed "may have been included in studies" to "were included in studies." But one of the cites says, "Due to such shifting diagnostic categories and inclusion criteria over time, these studies included children who, by current DSM-5 standards, would not likely have been categorized as transgender (i.e., they would not meet the criteria for gender dysphoria)."<ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532739.2018.1456390?journalCode=wijt20<ref> The source says "would not likely have been." It doesn't say "would not have been." While it says "transgender (i.e., they would not meet the criteria for gender dysphoria)," it's been agreed at Talk:Gender dysphoria and Talk:Causes of gender incongruence that gender dysphoria doesn't always equal trans, and vice versa. So who's to say that gender-nonconforming children without gender dysphoria were definitely included in the studies? How can "they didn't claim a trans identity" be used to say they definitely weren't trans and they were just gender-nonconforming children without gender dysphoria? I suggest changing the content back to "may have been included in studies". Thinnyshivers (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Thinnyshivers! There was more of a discussion of this in Talk:Transgender Youth, but summarizing the main points here:

1) You're right, non-dysphoric transgender children may have been included in the study. However, while we can speculate as to that, we have evidence that non-dysphoric and simply gender noncomforming children were for a fact included in the studies.

2) The old definition was any kind of gender noncomformity. The children in the original studies did not say they were trans or seeking to transition, but were referred by their parents for any level of noncomformity. For example, the diagnosis criteria for DSM-IV "Gender identity disorder in children" includes 1) a boy who prefers to play with girls and dolls instead of "rough and tumble" play and dresses femininely, 2) a girl who prefers to dress in "stereotypical masculine clothing" instead of "normative feminine clothing" and prefers to play with boys and play sports, and 3) a child who says they're trans/not their AGAB, reports body dysphoria, and wants to transition. One of these is not like the other.

3) The current definition for Gender Dysphoria requires a stated affirmation of being trans. IE, saying you're trans or implicitly saying it by saying your gender identity doesn't match your AGAB or you want to transition. The reason was because that old definition was far too broad, and instead of helping people who wanted to transition by giving them a diagnosis they needed within the medical system, it focused too much on an outside observer on lumping together all gender variation and then judging which were trans. Even according to the authors of the review: "The broadness of the earlier DSM criteria was also acknowledged by the American Psychiatric Association and World Health Organization. This was, among other things, a reason to tighten the diagnostic childhood criteria for DSM-5 and the proposed criteria for ICD-11. As we have stated elsewhere (Hembree et al., 2017; Steensma, 2013), we expect that future follow-up studies using the new diagnostic criteria may find higher persistence rates and hopefully shed more light on developmental routes of gender variant and transgender children."

4) The authors also stated "Unlike what is suggested, we have not studied the gender identities of the children. Instead we have studied the persistence and desistence of children's distress caused by the gender incongruence they experience to the point that they seek clinical assistance. As stated in our 2008 paper, we wanted to know more about the development of the children to find guidance in our clinical work. " Should note, as stated earlier, parents brought the kids in for being too noncomforming, many of the studies simply said too effeminate or tomboyish or etc, not for being trans or distressed by their own behavior. They also noted that of the children most likely to persist by their accounts, it was the ones who said they were trans(implicitly or explicitly) or who reported more bodily dysphoria.

5) And even with all that, in both Steensma (2011) and Drummond (2008) about 40% of participants were sub-threshold even for the DSM-IV (old) standards. IE: it's a fact that the studies included children (I believe in this case tomboyish girls) who were not even classified as dysphoric even at the time and certainly not now.

In short, there is evidence that the studies definitely included children who wouldn't be classified as dysphoric or trans, then or now. I hope this helps! TheTranarchist (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

So the old definition was slack. That doesn't mean that non-dysphoric and simply gender noncomforming children were for a fact included in the studies. It seems like you're saying that just because they didn't have to say they were trans, it says something about whether they actually had gender dysphoria or were actually trans. But in the discussion you pointed me to, you acknowledge many not saying those words and still being trans. Yourself included. Many also could not have said those words and still had gender dysphoria, but not be trans in the end. No longer having gender dysphoria can be different than someone saying they are no longer trans. But it looks like some of the sources are saying gender dysphoria is what makes transness and are then saying if the children didn't say they were trans, then they probably didn't have gender dysphoria. I keep seeing "likely", " most likely", "probably", and "may." Even "we expect that future follow-up studies using the new diagnostic criteria may find higher persistence rates" has "may" in it. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are Wikipedia editors discussing this among themselves? We have MEDRS studies saying that these desistance studies were overinclusive at the time of first assessment and underinclusive at the follow-up assessment. We also have more recent studies (with improved methodologies) showing much higher persistence. So why would we defer unduly to these old, crappy studies? Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thinnyshivers has a point, and we have to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Your first source is a "commentary" by a bioethicist, and your second is a recent study for which we need a source to make that connection - we as editors are not to do that. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The study included kids who didn't even fit the old definition, IE even the authors didn't classify them as dysphoric. The methodology of these studies has been criticized heavily for conflating gender noncomformity with dysphoria. The authors of the initial review even acknowledged the difference. Changing the definition of gender dysphoria from gender noncomformity to stating you're trans/want to transition is a pretty big change, which I feel should be fairly obvious. For analogy, if I "diagnosed" as gay a group of kids for liking musical theater, then found most weren't actually gay, it would be ridiculous to then say that most kids who are gay grow out of it, since I'd "diagnosed them" and they no longer showed it later. It would be more ridiculous to claim that my results still hold even and the diagnosis was still valid even in light of the modern common-sense and widely medically accepted "diagnostic criteria" (IE asking a kid if they're gay). Replace "liking musical theater" with "gender noncomformity" and "gay" with "trans" and you have the studies in question. TheTranarchist (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, my point is not that we should say in wikivoice that we know the earlier studies are shit because we now have better ones. My point is that we in fact do know the the earlier studies are shit because we now have better ones. And my other point is that we can say in wikivoice that the earlier studies are shit because we have a number of good MEDRS sources that document their many flaws, of which the one I linked is one. And what was your point about "commentary", anyway? It isn't RSOPINION, if that is what you're thinking. Newimpartial (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

TheTranarchist, saying a person grew out of transness is offensive to many. But is it just as offensive to say a person grew out of gender dysphoria? I don't think so, unless you're defining gender dysphoria as synonymous with people who turned out to be trans. If the standard in medical content now is to say gender dysphoria always = trans, then I think that's limiting because it's recognized that having gender dysphoria may not mean trans. What about children who are really distressed about their assigned sex, but who don't declare a trans identity? Are they diagnosed with something else? How are they helped? If they stop having gender dysphoria, they aren't counted because they aren't considered trans? Signs and symptoms, as outlined by the DSM-5, include a marked incongruence between experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six months duration, as manifested by at least six of them. One of the signs/symptoms must be criterion A1. A1 says, "A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender." I see "or" there, not "and." I don't know about you, but I'm aware of accounts of cisgender gay men and lesbians who had a "strong desire to be of the other gender." Thinnyshivers (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a person growing out of gender dysphoria is relevant to the topic of this article, except where the person has declared a relevant gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A part of the topic of this article is desistance among very young children and the accuracy of the desistance rates. For these children, desistance of a trans identity has been attributed to no longer being gender dysphoric. A criticism of previous studies is that they likely included children who weren't trans because of how the gender dysphoria criteria were defined. TheTranarchist used the words "grow out of it". But saying someone grew out of gender dysphoria doesn't have to mean that what is being said is that the person grew out of transness, unless gender dysphoria and transness are considered the same thing in that context. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

But the topic of this article is not in fact desistence from gender dysphoria. In so far as that was used as some kind of flawed proxy for desistence from trans identity, and we now have better measures of the latter, I'm not seeing the former as relevant to this article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the cites says, "Due to such shifting diagnostic categories and inclusion criteria over time, these studies included children who, by current DSM-5 standards, would not likely have been categorized as transgender (i.e., they would not meet the criteria for gender dysphoria).<ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532739.2018.1456390?journalCode=wijt20<ref> So gender dysphoria as "some kind of flawed proxy" for trans identity? What about the children with gender dysphoria who aren't trans? Ones who don't claim a trans identity, but may or may not be trans? Criterion A1 says, "A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender." Thinnyshivers (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Those people would not be the topic of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Desistance pieces of the article show they're already a part of the topic. For example, from the reasons section: "A qualitative study comparing child desisters to persisters (those with persisting gender dysphoria) found that while persisters related their dysphoria primarily to a mismatch between their bodies and their identity, desisters' dysphoria was more likely to be, at least retroactively, related to a desire to fulfill the other gender role."<ref name="Steensma">Steensma, Thomas D.; Biemond, Roeline; De Boer, Fijgje; Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T. (2011). "Desisting and persisting gender dysphoria after childhood: A qualitative follow-up study". Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 16 (4): 499–516. doi:10.1177/1359104510378303. PMID 21216800. S2CID 1789558.<ref> Thinnyshivers (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you not read the discussion of gender dysphoria as a proxy measure, just a few indents up? Newimpartial (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you saw where I quoted you. If you did, then you have your answer about what I saw. I know I have my answer (not from you, but from content and sources in this article) about what is part of the topic of this article without being "the topic" of the article (knowing that the topic is detransition, not desistance, anyway). Thinnyshivers (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

As long as you recognize that you have not in any way justified the inclusion of these non-detransitioners as relevant for inclusion in this article, then everything is good. Newimpartial (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Since I didn't say "include these non-detransitioners in the article", I guess "everything is good". What you've said so far about this part of the topic is disproven by sources and content in the article. This part of the topic is already included in the article. And that's good. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you feel that This part of the topic is covered in this article an a way at all different from what I described as a proxy for desistence from trans identity? If so, please point that out so editors can fix it. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This paper by Kristina Olson, released on Wednesday last week seems relevant to the discussion. The aims were to provide an estimate of the frequency of retransitions amongst children who socially transitioned before age 12 and provides an update on their current identies, an average of 5 years after their initial social transitions. From a cohort of 317 transgender youth (208 trans girls, 109 trans boys); 7.3% had retransitioned at least once during the period, 94% identified as binary transgender at the end of the period, 3.5% identified as non-binary at the end of the period, and only 2.5% identified as cisgender at the end of the period. This is certainly a far distance away from the 61-98% desistence rates recorded in the papers by Steensma and Drummond, and more in line with the rates reported by Hall, Clarke & Spiliadis, and Davies et al. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear, that is the same study I made reference to above. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ohhh. I missed the second link in that, and only saw the Ashley one being talked about in the comments. My bad. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the role of a gender dysphoria diagnosis is frankly a medical checkbox for a trans' persons right to transition. It's not directly being trans, but it is a gateway that must be passed for any trans person who wishes to transition. It lets the doctor signify the pain of being unrecognized by society as yourself and/or bodily/anatomical dysphoria caused by the wrong hormones/puberty. The old definition of gender dysphoria was literally just being gender noncomforming in any way, and put playing with kids of the same gender in the exact same category as stating extreme discomfort for their own sexual characteristics and a desire for those of the "opposite sex". It was changed because the previous definition was an outside observer noting a child was gender noncomforming in any way and the current is acknowledging trans people exist and justifying their right to transition through a medical lens. Even the authors of the review noted high persistence among those who had more "intense dysphoria"( stating a different gender than their AGAB and/or reporting bodily dysphoria), and said tightening the definition would lead to more accurate results, which it has. All the research which looks at stated gender identity and/or desire to transition medically and socially, which through the medical lens is found through the "gender dysphoria" diagnosis, showed high levels of trans children and adults continuing to be trans. While trans =/= gender dysphoria diagnosis, the statistics have shown most if not all who transition (through the gateway of the diagnosis), IE are trans, continue to be, and most people who want to transition, IE are trans, are best helped via being allowed to do so. Concurring with NewImpartial, a flawed and overgeneralizing study tracking gender noncomformity should not be given undue weight in an article about those who having transitioned socially or medically, reverse course for whatever reason temporarily or permanently. However, the study and it's criticisms and effects should be mentioned because it has been misinterpreted and fed into a damaging narrative that most trans kids detransition with wide ranging implications. TheTranarchist (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If the criteria for defining gender dysphoric/trans children has actually, in practice been narrowed, as you say (or as it purportedly has, at least on paper, how does that reconcile with the 2000-something per cent (or whatever the number, it's a 4 digit figure, whatever it is) increase in children that are currently being treated, or are waiting to be treated? If we assume transness is immutable ("hard wires"), the relative numbers of trans individuals should be relatively constant over time. The only two possible explanations for the current situation then, are: either enormous numbers of individuals in our generations are actually trans but never transitioned and are either still closeted or don't know it yet (not likely, at magnitudes of that great); OR, most of these gender incongruent children - as has consistently been the case, in the past - should be expected to groe out of their dysphoria/desist from identifying as trans; though, of course, it would be impossible to know which ones, thus no expectation one way or the other should be placed on any individuak. But for kids in this demigraohic in the cohorts of the not distant past, those that did desist (and go on to be gay or lesbian, in nearly all cases) all had to achieve one particular necessay hurdle before that happened: puberty. In other words, a gender incongruant kid CANNOT in most cases reconcile their gender incongruence until AFTER they reach puberty, without interference. Medicalising them before that happens obviously guarantees that that will never happen. So your persistene rates are therewith explained, not because of any "narrower" criteria that somehow also allows a 2000% increase while being "more restrictive". The purpose of this post is counterpoint to your guys' (gender neutral use) rationalsing for why to remove those sources and that data. Also, one more thing, desistence redirects here, so while not actually the same thing as the article subject, this would be the place to cover it, as long as this is where it redirects. SirTramtryst (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Editor was blocked for sock-puppetry. Striking per WP:STRIKESOCK Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have two questions for you: (1) why are you performing so much of your own analysis, on a topic where we should be following the MEDRS? and (2) why do you present your only two possible explanations as though they were alternatives, when actually they are perfectly consistent with one another? Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Elisa Rae Shupe

I feel like Elisa Rae Shupe should be mentioned in this article.★Trekker (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If anything I think this article needs to discuss individual people less, not more. Endwise (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

5-Year followup of transgender youth in a longitudinal study (TransYouth Project)

The current study examined the rate of retransition and current gender identities of 317 initially transgender youth (208 transgender girls, 109 transgender boys; M = 8.1 years at start of study) participating in a longitudinal study, the Trans Youth Project... We found that an average of 5 years after their initial social transition, 7.3% of youth had retransitioned at least once. At the end of this period, most youth identified as binary transgender youth (94%), including 1.3% who retransitioned to another identity before returning to their binary transgender identity. A total of 2.5% of youth identified as cisgender and 3.5% as nonbinary. Later cisgender identities were more common among youth whose initial social transition occurred before age 6 years; their retransitions often occurred before age 10 years.

See Gender Identity 5 Years After Social Transition. Endwise (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Intro section should be rewritten

The introduction section does a poor job at representing the info that is detailed in the article. For example, the sentence ״Reasons for detransitioning also vary...״ implies that transphobia from friends, family and employers, as well as other social and financial struggles, are just one among many reasons, when in fact, as the #Reasons section shows, they are extremely common, if not the majority of cases.
Additionally, there is no mention of most of what appears on #Cultural and political impact, e.g. the use of detransitioners by explicit anti-trans movement (which as it appears from the section and sources, happens a whole lot).
To make a long story short, the intro section should be rewritten to more accurately reflect the text of the article. //Yuval Talya; My contributions; Let's talk// 15:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal for what a rewrite would look like, or what the additional sentences / paragraph to summarize the cultural and political impact would say? --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Genspect

My change submitted to early, so I'll say it here. To call Genspect an "Organization that supports those who detransition" as opposed to "An organization that believes in forced detransition" or something similar is blatant whitewashing. If we are going to mention Genspect, the story does not start nor end at them holding a single PR day, as they are known to be part of an astro-turfed and unscientific hate campaign.

For reference, including them there is about as insensitive and tone deaf as listing NARTH as an "organization that supports those who question their sexuality" or "organization that supports those who don't think they're LGBT". TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, how about "Groups" or "Groups for those who detransition" as the title of the section? I hope that would be more neutral from your point of view. AndyGordon (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

By that reasoning, neutrally speaking, NARTH and Exodus International are "groups for those who question their sexuality" or "groups for those who realize they're straight".

I don't know what better way to explain the difference between supporting detransitioners and attacking trans people in the name of supporting detransitioners. A group that advocates conversion therapy and forced detransition against people's will is a not a support group for "those who detransition" any more than any other kind of conversion therapy is "support for those who change their sexuality".

I wouldn't object to them being described in the ex-gay section, describing them as a scientifically unaccredited hate group known for attacking transgender rights, spreading medical misinformation, and pushing to detransition people against their will (all verified critical context). Then toss in that little PR stunt of theirs after. But not this whitewashing, I legitimately can't tell if you're sea-lioning or really see no issue uncritically presenting them in such an out of context manner.

Speaking sincerely, do you really not see the issue I'm raising? On a human level, can you not recognize that there is a world of difference between advocating (and legally pushing) for people to be detransitioned against their will, and supporting detransitioned people, and understand why conflating the two is honestly deeply insulting? Would you include a one off description of NARTH or Exodus in such uncritical terms? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should include Genspect here. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the fact that there was a detrans awareness day should be included in the Detransition page. I had been thinking that group would cover both the r/detrans community and the awareness day, but I wasn't thinking of Genspect itself as a detrans group primarily. But, I can see that it's not good wording, and apologies. Perhaps the detrans awareness day should sit in the "Cultural and political impact" section. AndyGordon (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sincerely, thank you for recognizing that.

My issue with the inclusion of it generally is that any organization can have an X awareness day. Some reliable sources can even report on the fact they hosted X awareness day. However, unless X awareness day is a generally recognized day, one that's not tied only to the organization, I don't understand why it should be considered notable enough to include.

To be clear, if there was a widely recognized independent detransitioner awareness day, that could be merited for inclusion. But I see no evidence this event has a life out of Genspect and isn't a PR stunt. If we are to include it, and I maintain I'm not sure we should, the only way to fairly present that would have to provide a description of Genspect, namely as an organization known for opposing transgender rights, spreading medical misinformation, and advocating/fighting for forced detransition. The cultural and political impact section would be a better place for it than it's own section. Also, only two sources note the event, one of which is known for it's negative coverage of trans people. See here and here.

Overall, I think we should be careful to not spread PR for organizations that oppose transgender rights without making it explicitly clear what they do. Back to analogy, if NARTH held a bi-curious-now-straight awareness day covered in only two sources, it may be notable, but we would have to make clear NARTH is more concerned with conversion therapy than truly supporting or advocating the needs of those who realized they were straight. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Not doing your argument any favors with that obviously biased name. 2605:A601:AC3D:E100:41B6:9878:BC09:36D6 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually think it's a cool username 😎. What don't do arguments any favors are ad hominem commentaries like yours. –Daveout(talk) 20:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Pressure in Iran due to laws against homosexuality

This BBC article discusses a topic I was already familiar with, and *might* be relevant in small part here, or maybe not. The issue is this: homosexuality is illegal in Iran, but transgender identification is not. The upshot is, that some gay people feel pressure to transition; not optimal, to say the least. Some start on that path, then change their mind. In my way of thinking, this is not really "detransition" in the classical sense, at least with respect to identity (they were never trans in the first place); but if we consider "detransition" as broad enough to include detransition with respect to medical (primarily, probably) detransition, then perhaps it is relevant here. The BBC article is not the first about this topic, it's just what I happened to see recently; there's plenty of information about it. Just wanted to spark a conversation about this, to see if folks think that this article could include mention of the Iranian situation, which is an anomalous one and I believe unique in the world, or not. Mathglot (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say so; as long as we contextualize it properly as the sources do, it's a form of detransition, so it can be mentioned. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LGBTQ Reproductive Health

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makayaking6 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Makayaking6 (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 The Lancet study

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00254-1/fulltext --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ky Schever's quotation - subject to deletion

@Crossroads: I have just restored the remarks made by Ky Schevers into the article. Ky is a very notable individual, who had a significant role in the anti-trans movement between 2013 and early 2020. Since leaving that movement, Ky has been active detailing their experiences within that community, as well as being cited as reporting on anti-trans organisations. Accordingly Ky meets the criteria laid out in WP:SPS, and as a WP:PRIMARY source can be used when following WP:INTEXT as was done here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

One issue with this is that it doesn't obey WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but the main problem with it is that it is a self-published blog. Per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, and especially WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (Emphasis added.)

WP:SPS still says, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Ky Schevers is an activist, whose work has occasionally been published by activist sites, not an accredited expert with published work in sociology or psychology. This is an especially an issue since the text in question veers into WP:MEDRS claims about the origin of particular "psychological harm". And all this self-published material is in the most prominent part of the article, the lead.

SPS goes on to say, Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. I agree 100%. And what's to stop another editor from citing a blog by another detransitioner with another POV? I'm sure they could point to that person having written for that side's advocacy sites and being quoted in the media.

This should not be in the article and certainly not in the lead, and so far there is not a consensus for it - WP:ONUS would have to be met to include it. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

In the context that notability is being used in this discussion regarding Ky Schevers and content in the article, I urge that the criteria for notability be examined and followed. I also disagree with the Ky Schevers sources being placed in the lead of the article. I believe such sources, if used at all (individual accounts were previously removed), should be located in the "Cultural and political impact" section of the article to demonstrate the political, cultural, and social impact the notable individual accounts have had on this topic. And because detransition is a "controversial topic," it lacks study and unbiased media reporting, which constantly has to be taken into consideration by editors.ElisaShupe (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should put Ky Schever's quote in the lead, however I do think that a section such as Elisa suggested and more generalized lead text/quote would help ensure the article is up to WP standards. Ky Schever's also involved with Health Liberation Now, which published a detailed and evidenced report of the current state of anti-trans conversion therapy here. I also found this paper analyzing the links between the ex-gay and ex-trans movements here. Also an article about religious conversion therapy for trans people here. They can also be used to expand/improve the conversion therapy article. Here is a review of detrans studies noting the difference between the research focused on supporting detransitioners and that focused on preventing detransition. This should help us start! TheTranarchist (talk)TheTranarchist — Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think that it might be usable in the body (not the lead) but that if we're going to be cautious about it we have to be similarly cautious about citing other people's opinions and experiences in ways that imply that they're generalized. --Aquillion (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've been watching this discussion for a while; decided to make an edit and leave an explanation & thoughts. I second Aquillion's statement; if individual accounts like Ky's are to remain in the article, extra care should be taken to make sure they aren't being generalized. Ky's experiences & influence are very context-specific. To illustrate the what I mean, I've edited the article to change the phrase "her experiences in the detrans community" to "her experiences in a community of radical feminist detransitioned women". There is no monolith Detrans Community, and Ky was not a participant in evangelical conversion efforts -- an important distinction, since the next paragraph delves straight into that topic. She also did not participate in newer segments of the detrans community; for example, when Ky was an active "detrans activist", Reddit and Twitter were not the detrans hotspots they are now, which are different (both in ideological slant and number of participants) from the Tumblr/Wordpress blog-driven and in-person communities that preceded them. Many of the parallels that Ky draws (e.g. the recycled 12-step phraseology) are highly specific to small groups she was in at the time, and don't necessarily reflect detransitioners as a whole, not even the ideological ones. It'd strengthen the article to include additional perspectives/experiences if Ky's is going to be kept. They can be difficult to source, though... IdentifierExpected (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, while I'm looking closely at the edit history... this section about Ky falls into the larger discussion about whether including "Individual Accounts" is encyclopedic, further up on the Talk page. Per that discussion, there were a few broad edits made back in March 2022 that removed all individual accounts, including Ky Schevers, Carey Callahan, Walt Heyer, Keira Bell (who is notable given Bell v Tavistock), and others I'm admittedly less familiar with. These other accounts are just as sourceable as Schevers (Bell possibly moreso given the lawsuit) and they've all certainly influenced this subject's landscape via some combination of media portrayal, published books, political action, and/or legal action. So, where is the line drawn for individual accounts? Doesn't make sense to keep re-adding Ky but leave all the others out. Thoughts? IdentifierExpected (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    Hello IdentifierExpected, thank you for helping clear up my addition! I was against the removal of the individual accounts since I felt they add a lot of necessary depth to the article. I support re-adding all those individual accounts and trying to integrate more scholarly sources. However, I don't believe we should add them as a single individual accounts section since I'll admit that doesn't feel encyclopedic. A few suggestions moving forward to try and get as unbiased/nuanced a view as possible:

    Terminology Section: Include "retransition" or whichever term(s) is/are most appropriate.

    Reasons Subsection: Include the scholarly paper of links to conversion therapy here and some corroborating notable accounts

    Create a Healthcare section to cover detransition related healthcare. This will most likely also include notable personal accounts, methods of detransition, as well as scholarly papers investigating difficulty detransitioning and barriers to detransition.

    Create a Retransition section to cover the accounts and statistics regarding retransition.

    Somehow also include the second transition perspective, ie those who view detransitioning as a continuation of gender exploration rather than undoing a wrong choice. Some of the original individual accounts were like this.

    Reasons section:

    Include mentions of those who don't regret transitioning, viewing it as a chance to explore and happy they did but decided it wasn't for them. Important perspective.

    Generally structure it so we have (in whatever order flows best) accounts/statistics of

    1) too easy transition or a push to transition,

    2) deciding it wasn't for them,

    3) conversion-therapy / ideological detransition

    4) outside bigotry/temporary detransition. We should include state-forced detransition of trans minors (apparently defined as anyone under 25) since that's been happening.

    Cultural and political impact section:

    As many of the notable detransitioners mentioned above are involved politically in transgender healthcare, we can include the accounts/analyses of their roles in that.

    Remove / shorten James Caspian section since it's a back and forth account that doesn't add much, if we want to keep it we could just state the details of the original case and then say his appeals to the various appeals courts were denied on those grounds.

    I'd love to here your (and anyone generally's) thoughts on this! TheTranarchist (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    I agree, IdentifierExpected. The standard for inclusion of individual accounts should be based on some threshold of source coverage, or else include none at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason that Ky Schever resuming their transition should not be included, seems like an important point? 24.120.215.202 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed Ky Schever's quotation as this seems to be citing anonymous Twitter accounts. This is final decision.

History: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:aaf0:a8c6:dbb3:39fd:7c5f (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

IPv6 editor, please see the WP:CONSENSUS policy for how decisions on Wikipedia content are determined. "This is final decision" is not supported by policy, as consensus can change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The last paragraph, starting with "Schever's noted that" is pretty bad. The source is an activist publication and it's not written in NPOV. What does it mean that the lawyer "had connections to"? It seems like a random guilt-by-association thing. If he was an employee or something, then just say that. "Transphobic" is, ultimately, a pejorative, not an objective description of something. But I really I don't think the paragraph should be included at all. The source is weak. It's just a random grievance. If this was the page about that one specific court case, then the minutae of that court case would be relevant. But this is the Detransition page. Does anyone want to make the claim that this paragraph is relevant? Benevolent Prawn (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Reddit forum for detransitioners

@Bondegezou you had deleted text summarising what a secondary source (the academic article) says about the Reddit site for detransitioners. It was in this version of the page: Detransition - Wikipedia

Please can you explain your deletion? Many thanks!

AndyGordon (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The text cited a journal article, but that article only had a passing mention to the Reddit site. It was not the focus of the article. It is not clear to me that the edit satisfies WP:DUE requirements.

I don’t object to the thrust of what the text is saying, but better or further sourcing would seem appropriate. The existence of online support groups to support detransitioners seems like a useful point to make, but should we be giving special prominence to one particular Reddit group? Bondegezou (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Bondegezou

Why does it matter in policy that it's only a brief mention of the Reddit group in this article? It's a reliable secondary source, a peer-reviewed journal, and what the professor is reporting are simple facts about when the group was founded, its rough current membership, and a very brief snippet from the About page of the group.

I'd consider all reliable secondary sources that describe groups for detransitioners. It seems an important aspect to mention in this article. That is the only one I'm aware of, apart from Genspect and its Detrans Awareness Day. If there are more let's include them.

The mention of Genspect was just deleted by @TheTranarchist unfortunately. Please @TheTranarchist re-instate. It was a short sentence backed by the Times and Medscape.

Warm regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the section about "Support for detransitioners" was DUE or especially relevant. The framing of the section seemed to suggest that detransition was a category of people that could be supported or opposed, but I don't think this kind of politicization of detrans experience is especially representative of the RS literature (though it is certainly a culture war talking point). Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Why does it matter in policy that it's only a brief mention of the Reddit group in this article? See WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. While it is verifiable that the source used made a brief mention of that subreddit, how do we weigh that? It is not the only detransition related subreddit on the site, for example there is also /r/actual_detrans, and Mallory Moore, a subject matter expert on anti-trans conspiracy theories, has written about how the subreddit is managed by anti-trans activists, and that for actual support detransitioners should seek out other venues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The membership of an online group open to anyone is hardly a useful statistic. Genspect does not support people who detransition, that is a falsehood they project which we should have no role in helping perpetuate. One look at their article and it's apparent their main focus is attacking trans rights which, as I stated, includes forcing people to detransition against their will (unless stripping transgender people of medicaid coverage and the legal right to transition is somehow supporting detransitioners and completely ethical in some way I'm unaware of). Bottom line, we should treat Genspect with all the credibility of NARTH instead of constantly presenting them as merely having alternative viewpoints or acting like they have any credibility.

Include Genspect's PR stunt if you want, but only with the proper context that they fight for forced detransition and are a medical laughingstock (though that may be too kind, as attacking people's rights isn't that funny when you think about it). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Addendum, I've been putting it off too long, but I'll update the page to better reflect the ideological ties between the "ex-gay" and "detrans" movements ideologically and materially. For a little further reference, KY Schevers has written about these ties and helped exposed Genspect's role/ties specifically for Health Liberation Now. Elisa Rae Shupe has similarly spoken out against how her detransition was similar to the ex-gay movement. I'll focus on academic studies first then tie in more notable cases like Schevers'. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

On the section title, how about "Groups that support those who detransition". I agree that "Support for detransition" was clunky and possibly misleading.

From WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Looking at the article, we have a long paragraph about the legal struggle of one person James Caspian, supported by several RSs.

Seems to me that a group with 35,000 users after five years is a significant aspect of detransition. There is just the one RS but our summary was just a couple of lines, not a long paragraph. We could trim a little perhaps but cutting entirely is against WP:DUE. AndyGordon (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that a group with 35,000 users after five years is a significant aspect of detransition. The number of subscribers don't really provide any meaningful detail on the significance of the subreddit. The question, that can only be answered by looking at our sources, is why is this particular subreddit more noteworthy than any of the others when it comes to detransitioners? That's what you need to demonstrate so that we can figure out if mentioning this subreddit at all, is due and compliant with WP:NPOV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the support in independent RS for any of this section? Two sentences in an academic article that focuses on other issues? Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• At the very least, I disagree that the existence of a subreddit with 35,000 users is inherently significant or notable - that's not actually a very large number (many subreddits have userbased in the millions, and some fairly obscure or strange ones have userbases in the hundreds of thousands.) There's also no indication anywhere that that user-number... means anything, aside from accounts that were used to follow the discussions there. So the important question is whether the subreddit has significant secondary coverage, which I'm not seeing so far - all I'm finding is passing mentions. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Passing mentions" doesn't count towards the sort of notability that governs article creation, but an aspect of a notable topic (as this is) being repeatedly mentioned in RS should be included. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

So far it only appears to have been mentioned in a single reliable source. The other reference in the proposed edit was to the subreddit itself, Andy has not provided any other sources on this and it does not seem to be discussed elsewhere in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but then Aquillion mentioned finding "passing mentions" which could imply there are others. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I found several more RS that mention the Detrans Subreddit:

Article on Medscape - we should summarise "not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition"

Another article on Medscape.

Article on National Post.

Kathleen Stock article on Unherd.

Article on Evie.

Article on The Gay UK: "Detrans is a forum that was initially banned for around an hour but was later reinstated. Its purpose is to give those people who detransition a forum to talk about their lives and journies."

So I'd propose to re-instate the text about r/detrans with the backing of these multiple RS, making clear that not all the 35K are detransitioners.

Also, I do find the application of WP:DUE quite subjective. That policy is written in terms of philosophical viewpoints. It does seem to me that a single RS in this case would suffice but in any case there are many. AndyGordon (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUE is by nature subjective. Your sources are of suspect use in determining DUE as they seem to be a) heavily partisan and thus unreliable and/or b) opinion pieces and/or c) mentioning the forum only in passing and d) not WP:MEDRS. I thus don't believe there is a strong argument to mention the forum as that would unnecessarily advertise/promote the forum. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

We should be trying to minimize how subjective DUE is, as it leads to exclusion based on personal opinion. I think the sourcing is sufficient to include, especially Medscape. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That cuts both ways, surely? The subjective nature of WP:DUE weight can lead people to want to include things based on personal opinion as well - based on their personal perception that it is important. In fact, I think the latter is far more common because of the nature of due weight and WP:ONUS; there are some things we must include, and a small number of things we cannot include, but there is a much much wider range of things that could possibly be included or excluded - verifiably true, but not so central to the topic that anyone can reasonably say the article would be incomplete without them. It is only a problem if we include or exclude such things in an unbalanced manner, which is why due weight is relative; it's why I pointed out the passing-mention nature of the coverage. It does matter when weighing aspects of an article for article inclusion - in many places we devote mere sentences to summarize entire articles; how could it be WP:DUE to extract a single mention and give it the same weight? And more specifically, why mention that particular part of those articles, and not other parts? Why rely on these particular sources? Anyway, the answer to that is to look for things of comparable weight in the article that represent different aspects, opinions, or perspectives; then, if we can agree that they actually are of similar weight, we can include or exclude them together, retaining balance and due weight either way. Unless you want to argue that this subreddit is so significant that it falls under the category of something that must be included no matter what - eg. representing, alone, an entire significant perspective or aspect that has no other representation in the article. I don't think that that's likely to be a reasonable argument, though. The existence of a middling-sized subreddit on the topic is clearly not essential to the topic of detransitioning. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your comments. I find deciding on WP:DUE one of the hardest policy questions to answer.

I read the whole article and many of the sources. I discovered that this article that we summarize from Journal of Homosexuality sourced its subjects from online detrans communities (mentioned in abstract) with details in the text including r/detrans and also the site www.post-trans.com.

Nobody has complained that anything in the current text is WP:UNDUE. In the page, we have 290 words describing the legal situation of James Caspian. It's supported by 7 RS, 40 words per RS. That includes 120 words supported by a single source, Somerset Live ([55]).

To answer "how could it be WP:DUE to extract a single mention and give it the same weight?", the short answer is because the viewpoint is a simple uncontroversial fact described by 7 RS. (including Journal of Homosexuality, Ethnic and Racial Studies, and Medscape. The 7 RS are the 6 listed in my previous post plus the J of HS.) (I think all 7 are at least as reliable as Somerset Live.)

For the long answer, back to WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

The viewpoint to be included is 46 words to the effect that there is a Reddit site for detransitioners.

It's significant in that 7 RS describe the fact

If our coverage of Caspian is "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" then it's proportionate also to have 46 words supported by 7 RS. AndyGordon (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ultra-belatedly, but just mentioning this because I think it's important to interpreting WP:DUE (and WP:NPOV) - I think that "significant viewpoints" refers to broad, significant strands of thought on aspects of the topic under discussion; it doesn't mean we are required to include every single detail that has WP:RS coverage. So, for example, we could not omit the various perspectives on the frequency of detransition entirely, at least not unless someone can argue that some of those perspectives are in some fashion not prominent in reliable sources. But we're certainly not required to include something like eg. "a subreddit exists somewhere" - in this context it's not a "viewpoint" on the topic. After all, there are innumerable other minor facts in those sources that are not include - the important thing is cover all broad perspectives, not to cover every single individual point or fact brought up in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Presumed consensus to include - AndyGordon, there is clearly more opposition than support so far for the inclusion of this mention. How on earth were you able to reach the conclusion that there was consensus to include it? You should know that "consensus = Crossroads + one other editor" is not actually a rule found anywhere in WP policy, shocking as that might be to hear. Newimpartial (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I presumed consensus because nobody had challenged my reasoning on 9 September that inclusion was WP:DUE for 5 days.

Please note that I answered your question: "What is the support in independent RS for any of this section? Two sentences in an academic article that focuses on other issues?"

Please do not be sarcastic with me. In good faith I am trying to show that inclusion is due and spent some time giving detailed reasons grounded in policy. We're all trying to make this encyclopaedia better.

But you are right in that in WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." I have learnt something - thank you. AndyGordon (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is unsafe to assume that, when multiple interlocutors fail to respond to your comment on Talk, the most likely explanation is that all of them agree.

To make a specific objection to your argument (rather than a purely formal objection to your change): I don't see any evidence that editors, beyond you and Crossroads, agree that the viewpoint is a simple uncontroversial fact described by 7 RS. At least two editors have explicitly objected to the description of the subreddit you have proposed, which implies that the fact is neither simple nor uncontroversial, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, drop it, Andy admitted his mistake and thanked you for pointing it out. No need to drag this on further than needed. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

One of Lisa Littman's studies reported that when there were about 16,000 people in 2019 on the site a survey estimated that only 1/3 were themselves detransitioners. Personally, I have found much more enlightening civil conversations on r/actual_detrans which labels itself "An alternative to r/detrans that provides support to detransitioners, reidentifiers, retransitioners and questioners in an environment free from gender critical ideology and rhetoric" as opposed to r/detrans which has the rule "Never promote cross-sex hormones or surgery". Generally speaking, I'd say inclusion may be warranted, but we should not present them uncritically as a community of detransitioners without acknowledging their gender critical ties.

Additionally, I don't believe we should have that much on Caspian. He has contributed nothing to the field of research except been given a megaphone to constantly complain he's being silenced as he works with anti-LGBT organizations such as the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern. He is a Jungian whose work has been considered unethical at every review board since. While he decries trans activists silencing him, the board had consistent unrelated comments. According to his proposal and the ethics board response, he failed to account for the health and wellbeing of himself and his participants and also failed to adequately provide safeguards for the participants' data. A better summary is here. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing that we restore the section on "Groups who support..." from this version of the paper Detransition - Wikipedia but with the section renamed to "Groups". I count explicit support from @TheTranarchist @Crossroads and myself. I'm unsure on the current stance of the others who have participated, especially given the new information that the r/detrans subreddit is also described in Littman's published study If @Newimpartial @Sideswipe9th @Aquillion @Ixtal object, let's continue to discuss here. AndyGordon (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I think perhaps you've misread what TheTranarchist said. Specifically Generally speaking, I'd say inclusion may be warranted, but we should not present them uncritically as a community of detransitioners without acknowledging their gender critical ties. The proposed version, regardless of how you retitle the section, does not present any critical commentary on the ties between r/detrans and the broader gender-critical/anti-trans movement, nor the point raised by Littman regarding the population of the subreddit being only 1/3 detransitioners in 2019.

As it stands right now, I do not think WP:DUE has been demonstrated. Unless I've missed something, we only have two sources discussing it; two sentences in Littman's 2021 paper relating to the 2019 subreddit survey, and a very brief mention in a 2021 by Vandenbussche as one of the locations where Vandenbussche's survey was advertised. This to me does not demonstrate the prevalence of the subreddit within reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist re we should not present them uncritically as a community of detransitioners without acknowledging their gender critical ties. can you propose some text? Are there RS that discuss gender critical ties? Many thanks. AndyGordon (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@AndyGordon: Best thing is not to include them as the reliable sources leave out the full picture. Not to mention, what other subject, especially for medical/socio-political subjects, do we say "they have a reddit group", no matter how well documented it is? And as far as I can tell "well-documented" in this case means

In terms of their anti-trans ties, 1) literally cited by the same academic who's part of Genspect and created ROGD (Ms. "Kids are turning trans because of the internet, trust me, the transphobic parents who believe transgender kids are brainswashed by social media said so" herself). Luckily, Them pointed this out here.

As soon as we look at the support that the subreddit recommends we see them pointing people to Genspect (which at this point you should hopefully be aware does nothing but attack transgender rights). It also recommends the "Gender Care Consumer Advocacy Network", which Leveille helped found and left because of the fact they worked with the Alliance Defending Freedom to push House Bill 454, AKA the "Save Adolescents from Experimentation" act, which attempts to forcibly detransition trans people under 18 in Ohio.

Need I go on? And before you reply WP:OR, are these statements false or not? Their recommended "support groups" push for forced detransition, and while that's OR, it is an objective fact. Considering that, should we paint them as just a reddit group because of a few passing mentions in RS, or leave them out, perhaps until the coverage is more balanced at the minimum?

I see this as a symptom of the larger issue of allowing anti-trans conversion therapists to gain ground and rack up mentions in somewhat-reliable sources and uncritically presenting them, acting like wikipedia exists in some magical apolitical void. What exactly happens when we say "yeah here's a group to support those considering detransition" and point them to a group that points them to organizations pushing forced detransition without so much as a crumb of context? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Should be included since it has been mentioned in RS. Both whether or not a RS "leaves out the full picture" and the speculations you mentioned are WP:OR, while Them.us does not constitute a RS. I see no arguments against inclusion or for a specific way of describing it that differs from the way it has been described in RS. - LilySophie (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

AndyGordon, if you want to get consensus I recommend an RFC where it is clearer what change you propose and a wider group of participants gives their opinion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

After having reviewed this discussion, I agree with the others that support including a mention of it, since it has been named in a reliable source. - LilySophie (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Rates of detransition

Collapsing conversation started by ban-evading sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead currently states "Estimates of the rate at which detransitioning occurs vary, although it is rare". An IP attempted to change this to "Estimates of the rate at which detransitioning occurs vary widely, from less than 1% to 25%". The source used was from Reuters, the fourth part of a multi-author, long-form series on trans youth. It has already been discussed on this talk page. IN the source, it notes that "That has left a small assortment of studies to guide clinicians in this emerging field of medicine. The results of these studies suggest a wide range of possibilities for rates of detransitioning, from less than 1% to 25%". To me, this seems like an ideal summary of the current range of estimates for detransitioning, but the source has been rejected as not meeting the WP:MEDRS standard. There is a discussion in the talk page archives wherein editors agree to remove the word "rare" from the lead. It stayed that way until this edit when it was reinserted with two sources (neither of which appear to use the word "rare". I don't see why we can't use the Reuters source to support the range of estimates found in the studies. They are not saying that the rate of detransitioning is 1% to 25%, they are saying that 1% to 25% are the range of estimates found in studies. Even if we do not use this source, we should not be calling calling it "rare" in the lead, since it isn't clear what the rate is. I suspect we would all agree that it is probably low, but at this point we are lacking reliable data and sources to characterize it. Round and rounder (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC) I removed "it is rare" from the lead per this comment; to not be original research it would need to be specifically supported by sources, and the previous discussion against it also suggests we should avoid it without consensus. I would prefer to use a specific range as well rather than vague terms like "rare". Does anyone know where Reuters is getting the 25% from? Based on their wording it implies at least one study found it. I am inclined to think we should summarize it similarly to how they do. Crossroads -talk- 02:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Near the bottom of the article you can see they got it from a Lancet paper. Says 25.6% stopped filling their prescriptions but that it's probably an overestimate. VintageVernacular (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Slight correction: The 25.6% statistic (describing the rate at which adolescents persisted refilling hormones through their military parents' TRICARE insurance) is actually from this paper from JCEM. Reuters notes that this result is likely an overestimate because [researchers] couldn’t rule out that some patients got hormones outside of the military system, perhaps at college or with different health insurance. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC) I think it's a reasonable summary of the existing sources, but I restored it with another source using the word "rare" specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC) That looks good to me. Reliable sources have pretty consistently shown that detransition is typically rare, temporary, and primarily due to poor social support. Many people try to fearmonger about this topic, though. Hist9600 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC) @Aquillion You've found a primary source that uses the word "rare". I'm not sure how this satisfies the apparent WP:MEDRS requirement that excluded the Reuters source. More to the point, don't we need more than one or two primary sources saying it is "rare" for us to use that word? As far as I can tell, detransition is not common, but what constitutes "rare"? Is it 1 in 100 as the 1% estimate suggests? I wouldn't call that rare, although perhaps others might. On the other hand, the 25% estimate seems unlikely but I suspect it is a question of how "detransition" is defined. All that we do know is that estimates vary. I'm not sure why we would want to qualify this except to say what the variance is. If we can't agree on the range, let's not qualify it at all. Round and rounder (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC) I wouldn't categorize that source as primary given that describes itself as a systematic review of existing methodology and data rather than a study in and of itself; it's plainly secondary. One of the existing sources (Wiepjes) already also described detransitioning as very rare in its conclusion. But I've added a third, just in case. --Aquillion (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) @Aquillion If you haven't read the archived discussion, you may find it helpful. For now, let's ignore questions of primary or secondary source because I don't want to distract from the main point. Can we agree that the actual rates of detransition are not well studied and that there are a variety of estimates from different studies? Can we also agree that the studies may not be using the same definition of "detransition"? Round and rounder (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC) @Aquillion The source that you most recently added says The overall rate of retransition was 7.3%. Would you call that "rare"? Round and rounder (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Slightly semantic, but their "retransition" rate also includes binary trans ⟷ non-binary transitions, while this article currently treats detransition more narrowly as strictly trans → cis. The authors include the caveat that If we had used a stricter criterion of retransition, more similar to the common use of terms like detransition or desistence, referring only to youth who are living as cisgender, then our retransition rate would have been lower (2.5%). Ultimately the authors' interpretation is that [t]hese results suggest that retransitions are infrequent. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC) According to European standards for drug side effects, "rare" means between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000. 1 in 100 would be classed as "common". I'm not suggesting that we call detransitioning "common", but I do not think the use of "rare" in the lead is supported by references that have rates around or greater than 1 in 100. The body of the article already says The number of detransitioners is unknown, with estimates ranging from less than 1% to as many as 8%. I believe that should say "percentage" rather than "number" but it reinforces the idea that the rate is not known. The lead should not contradict the body. Round and rounder (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC) I didn't know that we were talking about "European standards for drug side effects". Is that the topic of discussion? Hist9600 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Just a note that Round and rounder is an LTA sock. Discussion can continue if others feel it's needed but any of their comments can be safely ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we add Retransition to this article?

I ask this because some detransitioners will go on to retransition in the future, and it seems like that's becoming more and more common as time goes on. If not, should we make Retransition its own article? AT1738 (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This article does briefly mention that people may retransition after detransition, as does the article on Transition (it would be a shocking omission if they didn't). There probably is enough said about retransition-after-detransition in enough sources that it'd be appropriate to create a small section here to cover it in slightly more detail than at present, if you would like to have a go at that, or suggest some wording and sources here. :)
I am not aware of enough sources discussing retransition in enough detail to suggest it would need its own article; most of the content is probably best suited to the Gender transition article, and a summary of retransition-after-detransition would be reasonable in this article. -sche (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Blaze article from June 2023

I thought this might be useful for improving the article:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/milo-mtv-transformation-detransition

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The blaze is an unreliable source. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Lisa Littman

I’m wondering if we should be treating Lisa Littman as a reliable investigator for some of these studies. She’s not exactly well regarded in her field Snokalok (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Both AJ Eckert via Science-Based Medicine and Lee Leveille via Health Liberation Now have pointed out severe methodological and factual issues with this particular study. I'd also add that the journal this was published in, Archives of Sexual Behavior, is also facing criticism and a boycott from researchers, and professional organisations in this field, as a result of publishing multiple papers with severe ethical problems. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia policy to not to include a peer reviewed research paper because the author is "not well regarded" (no reference given) and because two people disliked it in two blogs? The author's work has its critics-- it seems that the NPOV approach might be to cite peer reviewed critiques or critical letters to the editor (and any rebuttals), in that case.

This author was recently cited as an authority by the French National Academy of Medicine in national recommendations and at least once (again in a peer reviewed journal) by her colleagues who pioneered the "Dutch Protocol".

Thank you. Jdbrook talk 08:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

a new article from Reuters

Reuters released this article, might be of use.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/ Kerubis (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see this investigative report from Reuters is already linked above for consideration.

Robin Respaut, Chad Terhune and Michelle Conlin (December 22, 2022). Youth in Transition: Why detransitioners are crucial to the science of gender care. Reuters. Cedar777 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The main subject of the article, Dr. Kinnon MacKinnon, is a professor who transitioned. He mentions the challenges of having cooperation of people who wish to detransition. He and other researchers cited in the article have mentioned that people and institutions are reluctant to cooperate with the research. Dr Laura Edwards-Leeper, a clinical psychologist in Oregon, said that "“People are terrified to do this research,” and she cited vitriol against researchers as an impediment against doing research in the area.Dogru144 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There is also this article in The Atlantic from January 2023 that is co-authored by Kinnon MacKinnon and Leo Valdez titled: "Take Detransitioners Seriously"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/detransition-transgender-nonbinary-gender-affirming-care/672745/ Cedar777 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and this should be added to the lede "rare". DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There is also the quotation from a peer reviewed investigative article in the British Medical Journal (which also was cover story, i.e. "Editors' choice"): "but two recent studies suggest that as many as 20-30% of patients may discontinue hormone treatment within a few years."

Where does this go in the lede? Jdbrook talk 08:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerns regarding Vandenbussche study

I question the inclusion of the Vandenbussche 2021 study on detransitioners; it is reminiscent of the more recent 2021 Littman study which appeared more neutral but in practice was more of the same biased and flawed research deliberately crafted to inflate the issue of detransition and ROGD. Littman states in the study that she collected participants from detrans communities and more neutral sources like WPATH and APA professionals. However the study, as far as I recall, does not provide any information on what proportion of participants came from which source.

Littman's study also cites all sorts of anti-trans organizations like 4thwavenow and researchers like Kenneth J. Zucker, Vandenbussche's study seems much the same. It is important to note that forming detrans communities and talking about detransition isn't inherently anti-trans but the reality is most detrans organizations align themselves with anti-trans politics, even if they present themselves as neutral organizations. Specifically for the Vandenbussche study, the survey used was shared by Post-Trans, who seem like a neutral organization but a look at their twitter page shows they retweeted Genspect, an explicitly anti-trans, gender critical organization.

It also recruited from r/detrans, of which a look through their top posts of all-time shows many detrans people sharing their experiences, which isn't the problem, but what is a problem are posts like this in which explicitly anti-trans views are supported and validated by its users. Other posts talk about 'gender ideology' and describing transgender and sometimes queer communities on the whole as cults are cult-like with positive reception.

All of this leads me to believe that this study is too biased in its methodology to be reliable and should not be included amongst higher-quality evidence we do have.

Fjgwey12 (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions of court cases

Recently there was a mass addition of court cases backed primarily by WP:PRIMARY sources. There are a few secondary sources included, but the secondary sources are pretty minor, and some of them are unreliable. The edit has been reverted several times now, but there are a few editors who are trying to force the content into the article without seeking consensus. I think it's time to talk about the issue and discuss the edits, and whether they are appropriate. Generally this discussion would be opened up by the editors who wish to add the content, but it seems that they just want to keep adding it even when it has been reverted by multiple other editors. Hist9600 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I was surprised to see editors revert to restore this obviously disputed material. It's definitely problematic, as it leans so heavily on primary and unreliable sources. Happy to hear more about why we should include it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there are many good reasons why this shouldn't be included. The over-reliance on primary court records is a huge issue for WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, as are the unreliable sources. As I said in my recent removal edit summary the BLP issues alone are enough that per WP:BLPRESTORE the content cannot be restored without a consensus here first. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

US Military study

I'm for the time being removing the Roberts study not for MEDRS reasons (as I originally reacted at a quick glance at the article), but rather because, looking at its actual methodology more closely, it didn't actually track detransitions, just who got their hormones from the US military's pharmacy system and who stopped getting their hormones from the military's pharmacy system over a period between 2009 and 2018, during which there was a notable trans military ban. Snokalok (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Lisa Marchiano (2017)

Recently I have seen more prominence being given to Lisa Marchiano (2017), including in the WP:LEAD. Is this prominence WP:DUE? I see in her study, she refers to Jungian archetypes, "destructive psychic epidemics," being transgender as social contagion, and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). Is this really a reliable source to be using for a medical topic such as this? Hist9600 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The study in question was published in the journal Psychological Perspectives, a journal devoted to promoting Jungian thought:

Published since 1970 by the C. G. Jung Institute of Los Angeles, this unique and substantial publication voices, explores and documents a wide range of professional and personal issues related to Jungian thought and practice.

In other words, not a mainstream journal on modern psychology. The abstract of the paper starts out with:

Having lived through both World Wars, Jung was aware of the dangers of what he termed "psychic epidemics." He discussed the spontaneous manifestation of an archetype within collective life as indicative of a critical time during which there is a serious risk of a destructive psychic epidemic. Currently, we appear to be experiencing a significant psychic epidemic that is manifesting as children and young people coming to believe that they are the opposite sex, and in some cases taking drastic measures to change their bodies.

Author description:

Lisa Marchiano is a writer, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, and certified Jungian analyst in private practice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

I'm not seeing anything indicating that this qualifies as WP:MEDRS. Hist9600 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I say go ahead and remove the source, though it's used to back up a relatively uncontroversial claim here, i.e. that studies of detransition are of disputed quality. Probably best to find a better source for that statement than to remove the statement altogether. Generalrelative (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"Censorship" in opening?

The third paragraph of the introduction reads: Academic research into detransition is underdeveloped. Professional interest in the phenomenon has been met with contention, and some scholars have argued there is censorship around the topic. There are 5 citations for this claim. However, none seem to even mention the word "censorship"? Zenomonoz (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's supposed to be about a "chilling effect" or something like that? Or journals refusing to publish (although I doubt it)? But even if so it should be adjusted for clarity. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

At a glance this seems to be referring to Bath Spa University in 2017 rejecting a psychotherapist's proposed thesis on "trans regret" as being potentially "politically incorrect", which was picked up by various outlets and academics crying censorship. In 2021, BSU later told PinkNews that the ethics committee had rejected it over concerns of methodology and confidentiality rather than subject matter. I think some scholars have argued there is censorship around the topic and Some researchers perceive there to be an atmosphere of censorship around studying the phenomenon are a fair summary, although it might warrant further elaboration. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

For these two lines, the citations are swapped and therefore incorrect for the respective sentences. Please change them.

"A 2022 5-year follow up study of 317 socially transitioned transgender children published by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that 94% retained a binary transgender identity, 3.5% identified as non-binary, and 2.5% identified as cisgender. A 2022 study of 720 trans adolescents who started puberty blockers found 98% of them continued on to hormone replacement therapy. Most childhood desisters go on to identify as cisgender and gay, bisexual, or lesbian."

5 year follow-up study link: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected

Study of hormone therapy: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00254-1/fulltext#%20 Fjgwey12 (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 14:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"Forced detransition" section

It seems to me like the section titled "forced detransition" isn't actually, necessarily about forcing people to detransition so much as preventing or making it more difficult for people to transition in the first place. It seems like this section (and its subsections) need to be either retitled, reframed or moved into a separate (perhaps preexisting) article. If this weren't such a sensitive subject, I might've made the edits on my own but figured it best to pose the issue to the community first. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Zenomonoz (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Preventing someone from transitioning or making it difficult is most definitely forced detransition. There are many advocates who use this exact phrase in referring to this. There is no need to rename the section. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

But how can someone "detransition" if they weren't allowed to transition in the first place? Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It does both at the same time. Someone else later in transition would be affected by the same legislation. It wouldn’t just impact people who “haven’t” transitioned. Also, not all of transition is medical. Some is social. Some people socially transition before medically transitioning. Someone might be transitioning and is prevented from further transitioning. That is also a forced detransition, if partial. And often, the intent behind the legislation is to detransition trans people. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Detransition and regret

This article describes the flaws in the conclusion of previous studies that ‘only 1%’ has regret.

Can somebody adapt the main text? The info is not correct.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346

84.83.131.154 (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

When you did surgeory you cannot retransition and best to do then is to stay trans. But you can still have regret. YouTube is full of examples like that.

Many of the studies are confusing detransition during transition with regret. Regret is after complete transition, not during. Of course you can also regret during, but the issue is the post-regretters.

To get a good view, you need long term research. Many studies check after a few years. Those are the years of gender euphoria. The hangover appears after the party though.

Many studies lose contact with ex-patients. They move, or don’t want to participate or died. Therefore the noise in the % is significant and ‘only 1%’ is always a false conclusion. The noise is easily 10-30%. It is naieve to think the leftovers will score equal to the ones that have disappeared.

84.83.131.154 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

No, we can not include that article.

1. On medical articles like this, we have strict sourcing requirements (WP:MEDRS). We should be using the highest quality peer-reviewed articles summarizing the current state of research. This article is not a peer-reviewed summary but an Article Commentary, an unreviewed primary source.
2. This was funded by the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, a WP:FRINGE advocacy group, and written by members of the same. To quote some researchers from the Yale School of Medicine: The long list of citations omits mainstream scientific articles that do not support the SEGM agenda, and the list includes a large number of letters to the editor, which are not peer-reviewed or fact-checked,114 as well as other sources of little scientific value, including opinion pieces and case studies. and [SEGM]'s 4 core members are a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities – a fact that the SEGM website does not disclose. These 14 often write letters to the editor of mainstream scientific publications; these letters appear in the list of publications on the website (even though letters to the editor typically are not peer-reviewed or fact-checked). (Our review shows that the group of 14 has a total of 39 relevant publications and that 75% of these are letters to the editor.) [26]

TLDR, this paper is not a reliable medical source and that is a feature not a bug as it is published by a group known for pushing misinformation and avoiding peer-review. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)